Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LEEDS SUPERTRAM BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

CITIBANK INTERNATIONAL BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

Bill to be read the Third time on Tuesday 19 October.

UNIBANK BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

Bill to be read the Third time on Tuesday 19 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Ferry Safety

Mr. Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in the European Transport Council on the issue of ferry safety.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I told the Transport Council last month that we are committed to applying higher standards of ferry stability. Since then, we have made good progress in reaching a draft agreement with other member states, and with Norway and Sweden, to achieve these higher standards for ferries in north-west European waters.

Mr. Ward: My right hon. Friend will be aware that some of the best ferry services in the country sail from the port of Poole. Is he satisfied that our European partners are coming up to the standards that we require? What pressure is he bringing to bear on them to ensure that safety measures are brought into operation as quickly as possible?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend will know, the ideal is to achieve higher standards through the International Maritime Organisation, and we have been doing a great deal to try to do that in that forum. However, we were disappointed with the progress there, so for some considerable time I have been discussing with our European partners in the EC the possibility of introducing these higher standards in north-west European waters, failing ability to reach agreement in the IMO. I am delighted to say that large numbers of members of the Community, and Norway and Sweden, have joined us in this. I hope at a meeting tomorrow to finalise agreement, and I am grateful for their co-operation.

Ms Walley: Any improvements in SOLAS 90 ferry stability standards are most welcome, but I must tell the Secretary of State that many families preparing to go on their summer holidays, whether they sail from Poole, Ramsgate or the Dover ports—or anywhere else—want to know that the highest safety standards have been agreed.
As for the IMO, it is the Government's own port state control inspections that are crucial. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he will not go ahead with the deregulation of the Surveyor General's office? In effect, that would lead to lower standards while the rest of Europe attempts to achieve common standards of safety inspection.

Mr. MacGregor: I disagree entirely with the hon. Lady's point about the Surveyor General's office. We have been playing a leading part in the European Community on port state inspections and achieving stricter standards for them. We have been making a good deal of progress and we reached agreement on the way forward at the last Transport Council.
Ferry stability is a different question. Of course I agree that we must have the highest standards of ferry stability. We already have high standards in this country and we want to make them higher still. We are getting a lot of co-operation from our European partners. At the Anglo-French summit this morning, I discussed this very point with my French opposite number, Mr. Bosson. We reached agreement and I am grateful for his support.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are doing all in their power to ensure that Dover ferries may earn the reputation of being the safest ferries in the world? Will he also confirm that many millions of people can safely go on holiday this year using the wonderful ferries of Dover and have a marvellous time?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. With the building of new ferries, there is increasingly the opportunity for even higher standards. The SOLAS 90 argument is to get the higher standards applied to the older ferries. It is already happening and the agreement, which I hope we shall reach tomorrow, will be a further significant step in that direction.

Mr. Skinner: As, I assume, a legitimate member of the Cabinet, will the Secretary of State assure us that, when the channel tunnel opens, he will not allow the ferry companies to cut costs and put safety back on the agenda in a more serious way? Will he tell every member of the Cabinet that, when it comes to protecting the safety of passengers, he will not let the bastards grind him down?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman was so busy contriving his question that he failed to listen to earlier answers. If he had been listening, he would have realised that with our relevant Community partners—in this case, those in the north-west European waters—we have gone a long way to reaching an agreement on higher standards and I hope that we shall achieve that agreement tomorrow.

Gyratory System (Catford)

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work is expected to commence on site on the A205 Catford town centre gyratory system; and


whether the directorate of environmental services of Lewisham council will be permitted to compete for the design contract.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Subject to satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures, the work is currently programmed to begin in spring 1995. Competitive tenders have been invited for the design contract. Under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, local authorities such as Lewisham are not empowered to compete in this way for work offered by the Department.

Mr. Dowd: I thank the Minister for his answer. On the final point, will he confirm that the timetable for the consultants has been rigged to prevent local authorities from tendering, because the date has been set before the EC directive, which would outlaw such discrimination, comes into effect?
I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the decision on another south-east London road scheme—that at Oxleas wood—and hope that it marks a change in the Department's thinking, away from schemes for roads that nobody wants and towards those which everyone wants. The south circular, the A205, falls into the latter category. Will he confirm that there have been five start dates since the scheme was inherited fully formed from the Greater London council in 1986 and that, if the entirely unnecessary trunking of the south circular had not taken place, the people of south-east London and south circular users would have benefited from the improvement many years ago?

Mr. Norris: If I followed all that, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commendation for my right hon. Friend's announcement that we will re-examine the east London river crossing to ensure a better environmental outcome. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are undertaking that work at the moment. As for the ability of the local authority to tender for the scheme, I suggest that no ulterior motive is involved. It is clear that, under the 1970 Act, this is not the type of work for which a publicly subsidised local authority should tender. I regard that as not only a wholly unexceptionable principle but one to which it would be sensible to continue to adhere.

Mr. Dunn: Any works undertaken in Catford are bound to have a huge impact on the flow of commuter traffic from north-west Kent and south-east London into the centre of London. Will my hon. Friend assure me that every step will be taken at all times to minimise traffic dislocation to my commuters from Dartford, especially during the works?

Mr. Norris: I will indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Department tries, whenever possible, when major works are being undertaken, to take account of the effects on other parts of the region. I will certainly take my hon. Friend's words to heart.

Ashford International Station

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on the building of a new Ashford international railway station with related works.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I expect the railway works for the Ashford international passenger station to commence in October. The time scale for construction of the station buildings is a matter for the private sector promoter. I hope that work will begin in the first half of next year and that the new station will open by October 1995.

Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information, since the opening of the Ashford international station will benefit my constituents in Hastings and Rye. Does he know that there are rumours that the Hastings-Ashford line may be closed? Will he scotch that rumour once and for all and confirm that the electrification of that line will go ahead?

Mr. Freeman: I can assure my hon. Friend that no Minister has received any indication that the line is likely to close. Therefore, I can confirm that, as far as we are concerned, the line will remain open. It is an important and valuable line.
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that British Rail and the Department of Transport are in discussion with the private sector about its participation in electrification—not only of that line, but of the west coast main line—that will mean that we can accomplish those important infrastructure works faster than would otherwise be possible.

Dr. Howells: Will the Minister realise that there is a problem not only in constructing the Ashford international railway station, but in getting there if one travels from any of the regions? Many passengers in Wales, for example, would like to travel to Paris and Brussels via the international link, but can travel direct only if they leave at 2 o'clock in the morning. What will the Minister do to spare us the delights of having to travel round the Circle line in London?

Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Gentleman will know, some of the trains on the Great Western railway route will travel directly to Waterloo international station. If he has not seen the impressive new station, I strongly recommend that he does so and that he commends its use to his constituents.

Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a meeting last week at which the future of the railway lines through Ashford was discussed and that Union Rail failed to provide the necessary information for the basis of that meeting until 24 hours before?
Union Rail has a similar meeting in my constituency on Wednesday and has so far failed to provide any of the information required. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if there are to be meetings with the public to try to explain the positions of the Government and Union Rail, the necessary material on which to base judgments must be made available beforehand?

Mr. Freeman: I can assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends who have an involvement with the route plan for the channel tunnel rail link that we want Union Rail to conduct a proper consultation. At Maidstone last week, I undertook to write to all the local authorities and my hon. Friends by the end of the week, re-emphasising the rules of procedure under which Union Rail will be consulting, not only at Boxley and Ashford, but at other locations along the route.

Rail Privatisation

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet representatives of the British Railways Board to discuss the privatisation of the railways; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: I meet the chairman and other British Rail representatives regularly and will be doing so again this week.

Mr. Barnes: Most work on the railways has never been well paid, but at least it used to be secure and, after it, people received a pension. Is there to be a guarantee of job security in future and will there be a guarantee of the solvency of pensions when the dreaded day of rail privatisation arrives?

Mr. MacGregor: We reached agrement with British Rail and with the British Rail pension trustees last week on the final arrangements in relation to a solvency guarantee, following pretty long discussions in which we dealt with all the other issues. Arrangements have been drawn up and I answered a parliamentary question on the subject last week. In a generous way, I think that that gives the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Channon: Before privatisation takes place, would my right hon. Friend agree that there are still many lines in Network SouthEast that require new rolling stock? Will he therefore strongly encourage the new leasing deals? Will he also comment on the prospects of Network SouthEast being allowed to lease trains for that purpose in the near future?

Mr. Macgregor: As my right hon. Friend knows, a £150 million leasing deal, which was agreed and announced in the autumn statement last year, is currently out to tender, and BR will make its decision on it within the next two months. One of the possibilities there is for Network South East. I hope that we shall be able to continue that kind of arrangement in the future. As to privatisation, the opportunities for leasing will be substantial.

Mr. Trimble: Will the Secretary of State assure me that the privatisation of railways will not prejudice investment in the west coast main line, which is of major importance to us in Northern Ireland, as the Larne-Lochryan-Carlisle route is the major route used to carry the commercial traffic of Northern Ireland—[Interruption.]

Mr. MacGregor: I thought that other Opposition Members were also interested in the west coast main line —it is not just of interest to Northern Ireland. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no reason why privatisation should in any way adversely affect the proposals for the west coast main line. I hope that some of the preliminary work on that will start shortly. We are investigating also the possibility—we are out to consultancy on it at the moment—of involving the private sector in the construction and financing of the modernisation of the west coast main line.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend please note that there will be a warm welcome in Wales this week for his right hon. Friend the Minister of State when he travels with me on the heart of Wales line from Swansea to Shrewsbury? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say that that is a demonstration of the

commitment of the Government to socially necessary lines in rural areas, just like the central Wales line, and give lie to the fear that has been built up by Opposition Members that services of that kind, which are so essential in my constituency and other rural areas, will in some way be diminished by the Government's proposals?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend is doing a great deal of travelling around the country and is making clear, as we shall in Wales and as we have made clear throughout, that the subsidies will continue for socially necessary lines. I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who is looking forward to his visit very much, will do so as well.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Secretary of State accept that there is absolutely no need for the spurious and divisive contest between the west coast main line and Network SouthEast and that it is perfectly well within the gift of Government to allow both rolling stock schemes to proceed under the leasing procedures, which they have belatedly acknowledged as feasible?
Will the Secretary of State address himself also to the question of where the money is to come from to fund the profits that operators will look for under privatisation? Will he particularly address himself to the report by Price Waterhouse to BR, which has been commented on in today's Glasgow Herald, which shows that private investors are being encouraged to believe that they should seek a 30 per cent. return on their investment?
Will the Secretary of State tell us, after many months of discussing those issues, where that 30 per cent. is to come from in a subsidised, loss-making railway system? It can come only from increased subsidy, which is clearly not the Government's intention, or from cuts in services, increasing fares and the loss of jobs. Would not the Secretary of State be doing his Back Benchers and his candidate in Christchurch a great favour if he were now to draw one of those famous lines in the sand and forget all about railway privatisation during the summer recess?

Mr. MacGregor: I was in Christchurch recently and have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there was not a great deal of concern about railway privatisation, because the aasurances that I was able to give were clear. As to his other two questions, the leasing arrangement was feasible only because of the prospect of privatisation. It is only that which has made it possible. But, of course, one cannot do everything at once. One has to make choices among priorities. There must be a limit to the levels of public expenditure—it would be as well if the hon. Gentleman recognised that. As to the Price Waterhouse report, I have not yet seen it, let alone read the Glasgow Herald.

Mr. Wilson: Here is the newspaper.

Mr. MacGregor: I would rather read the Price Waterhouse report in full, if I may, and will certainly look at it.
The hon. Gentleman will know that there will be considerable opportunities for franchisees through efficiency gains, better marketing, increasing passenger returns and so on. I would also tell him that the Price Waterhouse report is premature, because, until the Bill is given Royal Assent, we will not be going out positively seeking franchisees and marketing the opportunities. It is not possible to make such calculations at this stage.

Regional Airports

Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to strengthen and develop the role of regional airports.

Mr. MacGregor: The Government are keen to see regional airports meeting all the demand that they can attract. We also wish to encourage much greater involvement of the private sector, including privatisation of local authority airports.

Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that many local regional airports such as Teesside remain unable to take full advantage of the new opportunities in freedom of air traffic movement, in particular around Europe, because they are shackled to local authorities, which lack the imagination and expertise to compete in a sophisticated market? Therefore, willl he give serious and urgent consideration to introducing measures to entice or compel local authorities to release those airports into the private sector, where they belong?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right on several counts. There are certainly big opportunities in Europe, not least with the third aviation package, the opening of the skies in Europe and the removal of so many controls. He is also right to say that regional airports have a big opportunity and to suggest that that is best seized in the private sector, as the British Airports Authority has done.
I have been trying to encourage local authority airports to go in that direction, partly by the fact that, given all the other priorities for public expenditure, I have cut the amount of public expenditure available, knowing very well that the private sector can find the funds. This year, through the 100 per cent. capital receipts, we have also given encouragement for local authority airports to seize the opportunity.

Mr. Snape: Is the Secretary of State aware of the newly announced twinning of Birmingham and Chicago? What support and encouragement can he offer to establish direct air services between those two cities?

Mr. MacGregor: I am keen to do so and, in the discussions that I am having with the Secretary for Transport in the United States, on which I have embarked and which I will be pursuing further in September, I am seeking further liberalisation of routes from the United States to regional European United Kingdom airports. Indeed, I recently made an interim offer, which he was not able to accept but which involved further opportunities for regional airports. I shall have that in mind in the negotiations in which we are now involved.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the further expansion of small regional airports, such as Blackpool in my constituency, and in particular the fact that a number of extra air services have started this year, including a direct flight three times a week to and from Stansted and a third airline using Blackpool as the airport of entry from the Irish Republic?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I welcome the development of regional airports and we believe that airport development is something for the airport operators themselves. I am pleased to hear of the progress that Blackpool is making.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister accept that, if it had been left to the private sector, for Manchester airport there would be nothing there? That is a good example of the foresight of the Manchester city fathers and other local authorities, which have developed one of the best international airports in the country. Is it not grossly unfair for the Government to be robbing them of that asset just as the airport is proving to be such as success?

Mr. MacGregor: There is no question of robbing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there has been massive Government investment in Manchester airport. The significant point now is that regional airports can, in the same way as London airport, raise their funds from the private sector because they are regarded as successful businesses. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noted that BAA, since privatisation, has put in a great deal more capital investment than was possible when it was in the public sector.

Mr. Steen: Will the Secretary of State consider ring-fencing the flights from Heathrow to Plymouth? As he knows, the west country depends on the link between Heathrow, Plymouth and Newquay, so he would be doing it a great service if he would do something to protect the route. British Airways has taken it over, and nobody is certain that it will not give up the slot and use it for a more lucrative route.

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, I fully appreciate the importance of air services to the south-west, but we have discussed the difficulties of ring fencing particular slots. In that regard, I see British Airways acquisition of Brymon Airways as a reassuring development. I am pleased to note that British Airways has stated that it recognises the importance that the people of Devon and Cornwall place on their air link with Heathrow and looks forward to improving its communications with its international network there.

Road Building

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department is proposing to spend on new road building during the next five years.

Mr. MacGregor: The current public expenditure plans of my Department involve the spending of £4·1 billion on the construction of new motorways and trunk roads in the years 1993–94 to 1995–96. In the current year, we plan to spend £1·4 billion on building new motorways and trunk roads as part of this year's record expenditure of VA billion on national roads.

Mr. Mullin: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision not to concrete over Oxleas Wood. Was it a one-off or the first step in a programme to prise his Department from the grip of the road lobby? If the Government are interested in making savings in public funds, is not their insane road building programme an obvious place to start?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not accept that it is an insane road building programme and, as I go round the country, the demands and requests that I receive are for building bypasses and improving the motorway network, on which the vast majority of people want us to put emphasis. Increasing emphasis is being placed on environmental issues. Having benefited from close proximity to a wood,


and knowing the importance of lungs, I believe strongly in trees and woods and lungs for London. I took my decision on Oxleas Wood on its merits. Nowadays, the Department of Transport puts heavy emphasis on all environmental aspects of the road programme.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey North-West (Sir M. Grylls) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) are today visiting the European Environment Commissioner to express the concern of many thousands of people in Surrey and elsewhere around London about the proposal to build link roads on the M25? To what extent is my right hon. Friend of the view that link roads work in harmony with local, district, county and regional plans and, indeed, with the Department of the Environment's Green Paper, which was published only last week and suggested that we should restrain traffic growth in the interests of the environment and of health?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that they are consistent with regional plans and with the Department of the Environment's Green Paper, with which I was closely associated and with which I agree. We propose to hold a public inquiry next year on the proposed link road between the M3 and M4, which will have to look at the fact that doing nothing is not an option. Whatever restraint—motorway tolling or other measures—is put on the growth of traffic, there is no doubt that traffic on that section of the motorway, which is one of the most congested in the country, will continue to increase. Unless something is done, the danger is that a substantial amount of traffic will be diverted back to local roads, which will recreate the congestion and environmental disadvantages that the M25 was designed to remove.

Mr. Harvey: Will the Minister confirm whether his Department is considering a network of 12 or 14-lane wide motorways, as speculated in some Sunday broadsheets, whose vivid diagrams almost went off the edge of the page and probably evaded the tabloids altogether? Is not he concerned about projected growth figures of 35 million vehicles by 2025, and how will that square with the commitments that the Government gave at Rio? Is not he concerned by reports linking asthma with car usage? Does not a point come when one has to say enough is enough and instead seek investment opportunities in the public transport network?

Mr. MacGregor: Let me deal with a few of those points. First, I do not confirm the reports in the Sunday newspapers. We are talking about a three-lane link road on each side of the M25 on one section, and I have announced one other. The important point is that it is not just the M25 around London—preventing traffic coming into London—but a major arterial route between several other motorways. It is an exceptional part of the motorway network and, in my view, needed the type of proposals that we are putting forward to a public inquiry.
We are taking a large number of steps to deal with environmental pollution. I am aware of the asthma research and look forward to seeing the results in 1994. The hon. Gentleman should not neglect the fact that allowing traffic to move freely also contributes to removing pollution from the atmosphere. If traffic is

congested and stays still, it is a major contributor to atmospheric pollution; we are taking many steps to put that right.

Mr. Luff: When my right hon. Friend considers how much money to spend on investment in roads, will he consider the advantageous effect of a significant investment in local rolling stock on the railways in my constituency? Does he acknowledge that investment in the new Cotswold turbos between Worcester and London has led to a 26 per cent. improvement in revenue in the past two months on my local rail service, and will he bear that strongly in mind when considering the relative merits of road and rail investment?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is quite right and I am aware of all of that. However, when considering the problems on the M25 that we discussed earlier, one must realise that whatever one does on the railway system will not substantially reduce the increased amount of traffic likely to flow on that road.
My hon. Friend mentions an important point, which enables me to emphasise yet again, particularly to those who argue that the Department of Transport is mainly concerned about roads, that 56 per cent. of the Department's spending is on roads, compared with 44 per cent. on public transport. Given that nine tenths of traffic goes by road, that shows that, if anything, we in the Department of Transport are skewing—relatively speaking—public expenditure favourably towards public transport.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that his Department's estimates mean that growth in use of the private motor vehicle will need a road to accommodate demand equivalent to a 275-lane motorway from London to Glasgow? Is not his proposal to increase the M25 to 14 lanes the down payment on that crazy policy? Will he conduct a fundamental review of the road programme that will encourage people to transfer to public rather than private transport, as the only way of dealing with congestion and environmental problems? I assure him that we will vigorously oppose his plans for the M25 through the summer and beyond.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is free to put his points to the public inquiry that I have set up, but I have thoroughly considered the arguments and believe that there will continue to be a need for a substantial road building programme such as we envisage. I notice that the Opposition Front-Bench Members have decided on a wholesale review of the road building programme and the scrapping of some major projects. They fail to appreciate that the road programme is a vital part of our overall transport strategy. I believe that to halt our present plans is to ignore the needs of industry, to ignore the right of every person to choose how to make a journey and to ignore the fact that, as living standards improve, there will inevitably be growth in road traffic. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I said earlier, 44 per cent. of our current spending is on public transport.

Biddulph, Staffordshire (Bypass)

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to include the Biddulph bypass in the highways capital programme for Staffordshire.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): It is up to Staffordshire county council to decide whether to include the Biddulph bypass scheme in its next bid for highway capital.

Sir David Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department considers the Biddulph bypass a very useful scheme? Is he aware that there is an urgent necessity for the bypass to reduce congestion, improve traffic safety and facilitate industrial development? As it will be on the list submitted next year, will he approve it?

Mr. Key: I look forward to seeing the details of the scheme. It is important and I would only add to what my hon. Friend has said that I am sure that it would also be of enormous benefit to the people in Biddulph, on that very busy road between Stoke and Congleton, and that the environmental benefits will be substantial. Of course, it has featured in earlier Staffordshire transport policies and programme bids, but it has not so far been sufficiently advanced to be considered for transport supplementary grant. I will consider it very carefully and bear in mind the strong representations that my hon. Friend has made.

Dr. Wright: Is the Minister aware that a route has been proposed for the Birmingham northern relief road—a privately funded toll road which, interestingly, has a form of tolling that the Government rejected in their Green Paper?

Madam Speaker: Order. We are dealing with Staffordshire at the moment. [Interruption.]

Dr. Wright: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Birmingham northern relief road passes through southern Staffordshire. Is he further aware—

Madam Speaker: Order. You have a Speaker who knows the region very well. It is nowhere near that area: I know that.

Bus Deregulation

Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in the sale of bus companies outside London.

Mr. Freeman: Seventeen of the original 53 local authority-owned bus companies outside London have been sold. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that interest in the sale of the remaining municipally-owned bus companies remains high.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sale of bus companies is good for employees—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is good for employees because it gives them the possibility to share in the ownership of their company, which is good Conservative policy. Despite all the nonsense spoken by the Opposition, Oxford is a good example of how things can go right when the principles are correctly put in place.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is not inclined to suggest taking those bus companies back into public ownership because lie knows very well that privatisation has been a success among management and employees.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Audit Office

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what plans he has to monitor the performance of (a) the Comptroller and Auditor General and (b) the National Audit Office.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Public Accounts Commission considers the National Audit Office corporate plan in July each year. This year, it contained a chapter on NAO efficiency and performance overall, showed key performance measures—both targets and actual—and the impacts of NAO work, and recorded outcome against plan for the preceding financial year. The performance of the Comptroller and Auditor General in delivering more results with relatively fewer resources speaks for itself.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Chairman ensure that there is a full response to the most serious allegations about the Comptroller and Auditor General in the July edition of "Business Age" magazine? Saudi-related arms deals and the under-priced sale of Royal Ordnance are two of the scandals, and while he was at the Ministry of Defence the Comptroller is alleged to have audited himself. Is not the system wrong? Should not there be better performance monitoring of the auditor and his staff? As he can be removed only by the Queen and the two Houses of Parliament, is not the state auditor in thrall to the Head of the Government instead of being independent in law, as is the state auditor in other countries?

Sir Peter Hordern: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his supplementary question. The Comptroller and Auditor General has been to see me at his own request about these matters. I heard and accepted his explanation on each of the points made in that article. It is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, not the Government, who nominates the Comptroller and Auditor General. Secondly, the points made in that article can be and, I believe, in some cases have been investigated by the Public Accounts Committee, and could be again. Both the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and I have every confidence in the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is a devoted servant of the House.

Mr. Wicks: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what plans the Commission has to increase National Audit Office expenditure on cost-benefit analysis.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what proportion of National Audit Office studies are cost efficiency reviews; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Peter Hordern: In 1992–93, the National Audit Office delivered 51 major value-for-money studies, which comprised about half the work of the NAO, and plans to continue deliveries at the same level in the future. The selection of topics for investigation is based on a systematic review of expenditure and value for money. The NAO's investigations employ cost-benefit analysis techniques where appropriate.

Mr. Wicks: Does the Chairman of the Commission agree that while we know much about the cost of public


programmmes, we still know too little about their impact and benefits? Does he further agree that we need to know more about the impact of public investment on areas such as family policy and crime prevention?

Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Gentleman has a good point. The National Audit Office is doing far more value-for-money studies than it has done in the past, using the techniques that I have mentioned. I accept that there is always room for improvement. If the hon. Gentleman has specific points in mind, I hope that he will get in touch with me and I will see that they are directed to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, past work has been very helpful in identifying cost benefits in each of the reports produced. Has there yet been a benefit analysis of the delivery of public services across Greater London, comparing the time when there was a strategic authority with today, when that authority has been replaced by 33 local authorities? If no such analysis has been carried out, can the information be included in one of the forthcoming reports?

Sir Peter Hordern: I will consider it. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me, I will take the matter up. If he is referring to the London residuary body, which is a matter of interest to him, the PAC has the right to call for papers and persons. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to follow that up, it could be a matter for the PAC to recommend that the C and AG investigate.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Health and Safety Training

Mr. Spellar: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has received about health and safety training for staff of the House.

Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): None.

Mr. Spellar: That seems a fairly unsatisfactory reply. Would it not be more satisfactory if the health and safety matters of the House were brought under the auspices of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974? That would mean that such matters were properly covered and controlled by statute.

Mr. Beith: Neither I nor the other Commissioners are responsible for the fact that representations are not made to us. The hon. Gentleman's question went wider than his original one. He raises a fair point about how effect can best be given to the general desire for health and safety requirements to be applied in the House. It is the Commission's policy that they should be applied. Discussions are taking place about the means to be used to give legislative effect to that policy.

POLIS

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what measures are being taken to facilitate the provision of POLIS within Members' offices

via the parliamentary data and video network; and when the network will be extended to the Norman Shaw buildings.

Mr. Beith: The parliamentary data and video network is at present available to Members on the lower floors of Millbank, and a small number of Members outside via a telephone link. The network has been authorised only as a pilot phase and is currently being reviewed by the Information Committee, which hopes to report later this year. Any plans to extend the network, including POLIS, to the Norman Shaw buildings, or elsewhere, will need to await approval of the service by the House following the report from the Information Committee and the provision of the necessary funds in the estimates.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his long and helpful answer. Does not he accept that the provision of POLIS to all Members of the House will help reduce the burden on our excellent Library and librarians? It will also help all Members of the House assist still further their constituents, including my own in Lichfield, Rugeley and Stone.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes his case clearly. It was the kind of interest that he has shown which led to the approval by the Commission of the pilot project. It is on the basis of that pilot project that the House will be able to decide whether to extend the scheme and continue it.

Mr. Olner: These new developments will obviously be welcomed in the Norman Shaw buildings, but there is a great deal to be done in this particular building. Many of the offices here only have an annunciator. It would be better to ensure that the facilities were more widely available to people in the House and to bring everyone up to a level standard.

Mr. Beith: That is the approach which the Commission has taken. It was convenient to carry out the current pilot study in Millbank because new work was being done there. Any extension of it would have to be considered by the House as a whole, but I imagine the desire to see that the facility—if extended—is available to Members generally would weigh heavily with the Commission and the House.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an unlimited expansion of the use of POLIS would lead to a substantial increase in the demand on telephone services, bearing in mind that the databank is held remote from the House? Is not the financial implication of the expansion of POLIS part of the Information Committee's remit in assessing its acceptability to the House?

Mr. Beith: Yes, it is. It will also be one of the Commission's concerns when any proposal is considered by the House. The final decision, however, will rest with the House.

Health and Safety

Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what breaches in the Palace of Westminster of the provisions of the health and safety Acts have been reported to the Commission.

Mr. Beith: The Commission has received no such reports.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Is a specific Officer of the House responsible for health and safety? How can hon. Members who employ staff ensure that they are complying with the health and safety Acts when they have no control over the environment overall? Surely now is the time to end Crown immunity, so that the House is open to inspection by local environmental health officers.

Mr. Beith: Each Department has its safety representatives, who carry out the necessary work in that Department. The removal of Crown immunity from these buildings was mentioned in an earlier question, and I expressed my willingness for that to happen, but it is a complicated legal process. Discussions are taking place; in the meantime, the Commission considers it important for the House to retain its policy of seeking to comply with the requirements placed on it by the legislation.

Office Accommodation

Mr. Wicks: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans the Commission has to increase office accommodation for hon. Members.

Mr. Beith: Planning for the construction of the phase 2 building is progressing. The building will accommodate some 500 people, and will include sets of offices for 210 Members of Parliament and their staff. As an interim measure, the House has acquired the lease of a building at 7 Millbank. Once conversion work has been completed, that building will provide offices for some 115 Members and their staff. The upper floors of the building are expected to become available in stages between October 1993 and February 1994.

Mr. Wicks: Does the Chairman of the Commission think that, in future, one body rather than two should allocate offices to both Members and their assistants or secretaries? My constituents are surprised when I tell them that my office is in Norman Shaw North, and that my assistant works in the Millbank building about 12 minutes away. Sometimes they say that, if we cannot run the House of Commons, it is not surprising that no one seems to be running the country.

Mr. Beith: I am not the Chairman of the Commission, Madam Speaker; you are.
The arrangements whereby parties use the accommodation allocated to them are normally settled within the parties. If those arrangements were put on a new footing, the parties would no doubt have to make representations to the Commission.

Refreshment Department Account

Mr. Steen: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the surplus on the Refreshment Department account in the last financial year; and what amount was carried forward from previous years.

Mr. Beith: The Refreshment Department's income and expenditure account for the year ending 1 April 1993 showed an operating surplus of some £320,000, and a total

surplus—including interest—of £445,000. The accumulated surplus brought forward from previous years is £2·7 million. By decision of the Commission, that is being set aside as a reserve to provide funds for the capital improvement programme required by the Department.

Mr. Steen: I understand that the House is to authorise the spending of about £19 million on updating the kitchens. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that money need not be spent on updating kitchens for good food to be provided? Would it not be a good idea to spend some of that surplus of nearly £3 million on improving the food in both the Members' Tea Room and the cafeterias? Could we not have some good west country dishes and some nice English wine? There are some wonderful west country recipes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has some splendid ideas for the kind of food that could be sold here.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Catering Committee, and he doubtless provides such advice regularly. The Committee and the catering manager have never been short of advice from Members about delicacies from various parts of the country that could be included in our menus.
Expenditure is necessary, however, both to comply with environmental health requirements and to ensure proper working conditions for staff. It is amazing that such good food has been provided from some outlets in the House where kitchen conditions are frankly not good enough.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that some of the money will be spent on improving conditions for staff? At present, the conditions are only slightly better than those operating in Victorian times. Surely, if we are to make laws about employment, the House of Commons is the first place where we should improve facilities for staff.

Mr. Beith: Most certainly. That has been the policy of the Commission, and the Commission and the Catering Committee both want to see that policy continue.

Mr. Cormack: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how much tripe has been served during the past year?

Mr. Beith: Not without notice.

Sub Judice Rule

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to bring forward proposals to amend the sub judice rule as it applies to discussions in the House.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have no such plans. That is primarily a matter for you, Madam Speaker. Any hon. Members who believe that the application of the sub judice rule in the House should be changed should refer their concerns to the Procedure Committee.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My right hon. Friend's response may have been overtaken by the sad events of last week. Will the Lord President, in the new spirit of comradely friendship, offer his best wishes for good health and fortitude to Lord Rees-Mogg in the important battle for British freedom which he has now embarked upon?

Mr. Newton: I hope that I have always approached my hon. Friend—a fellow Essex Member of Parliament—in a spirit of comradeship and friendship, despite our occasional disagreements. I fear, however, that he may be stretching the current spirit of goodwill just a little with the latter part of his question. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noted your ruling on Thursday, Madam Speaker, that you would not be applying the sub judice rule on that occasion.

Mr. Cryer: The case that has been submitted by Lord Rees-Mogg is concerned with the application by Ministers of the proceeedings, and is not a criticism or attack on the House which would have been a quite different matter. Is not it important that Ministers are subject to a judicial review of their actions if they ignore legislation that has been passed by the House and try to corrupt that legislation to support the Maastricht treaty?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, in a way that is perhaps not unfamiliar, appears to be enticing me into something that may be in breach of the sub judice rules that are subject to your guidance, Madam Speaker. I have no intention of commenting further on the case, beyond saying that it appears to involve potentially complicated ingredients.

Northern Ireland Select Committee

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he is now in a position to announce the formation of a Northern Ireland Select Committee; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: As the Government have made clear on a number of occasions, both in response to the Procedure Committee's 1990 report on the workings of the Select Committee system and on subsequent occasions, that is a matter which we continue to keep under review.

Mr. Barnes: I do not know whether that answer will satisfy the Ulster Unionists who, are understood to have entered into a squalid deal with the Government in connection with the advance of their position within the House. There is a serious case for the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee, in that matters relating to Northern Ireland should be put under scrutiny through the House, and the present procedures do not provide for that.
Should not the deal that was entered into have sought to persuade the Ulster Unionists to join the British-Irish parliamentary body, where they could have become involved in that body's scrutiny avenues and help in the establishment of a Northern Ireland Committee which the SDLP could be asked to join as well?

Mr. Newton: The Government have always recognised that there is a case for the established of such a Committee. That is precisely why the Procedure Committee made observations on the matter, while acknowledging a number of difficulties, in its report of 1990. That is also why the Government have responded on a number of occasions in the way which I have repeated today.
The hon. Gentleman makes further allegations of what he chooses to describe as a squalid deal. I can do no better than repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in response to a question from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on 23 July. He said:
Nothing was asked for, nothing was offered and nothing was given."—[Official Report, 23 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 631.]
Those sentiments have been repeated by Ulster Unionist Members.

Mr. Bellingham: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-east (Mr. Barnes) may be aware that the Ulster Unionists have places on the British-Irish governing body, but they choose not to use those seats for the moment.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a Select Committee for Northern Ireland is long overdue? Does he also agree that the arguments that that would somehow encourage integration are rotten arguments which should be ignored?

Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend says. Rather than hearing talk of what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) described as a "squalid deal", the House might wish to be reminded of the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about how he saw the future government of Ireland. One need look little further for reasons why the Ulster Unionists might wish to support the Government.

Recesses

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to vary the timing and length of parliamentary recesses.

Mr. Newton: I have no such proposals, although I use my best endeavours to give as much notice as possible of recess dates. Those endeavours have not been so successful this year as I should have liked.

Mr. Banks: Does the Lord President accept that, apart from the occasional Member of Parliament who has a Caribbean island, for most of us the summer recess will not be a holiday so much as a time to catch up on work that we had to put to one side during Maastricht? While I accept that the Government want to creep away and lick their post-Maastricht wounds, clearly we want to carry on the job of bringing them down, which we almost achieved last week. Does the Lord President accept that it would be better to even out our sittings over the year? While he is answering, will he tell us when we shall deal with the Jopling report?

Mr. Newton: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question anticipates a question which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has tabled. The second part of his question was political rhetoric rather than a question. I disagree with what he said. In the spirit of comradeship and friendship in which we started these exchanges, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the first part of his question, which was about whether Members of Parliament would generally spend a large part of the recess doing work of other kinds.

Assisted Areas

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's review of the assisted areas map. I had hoped to make the statement to the House last Friday, following approval from the European Commission on Thursday. But this was not possible because of other business. However, I signed the order giving effect to the new map on Friday and gave a written answer on the map. The order will come into effect on 1 August.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I wrote to all the right hon. and hon. Members to inform them of the effects of the new map on their constituencies. We also made available in the Vote Office a short document setting out how we carried out the review and the outcome.
The present assisted areas map dates from 1984. It is out of date. In June last year we issued a consultation document announcing a review, setting out the procedures and inviting representations during a period of public consultation. A list of submissions received was placed in the Library on Friday.
The map defines those parts of Great Britain which are eligible for schemes for regional assistance. Those schemes are designed to promote new investment and jobs—inward investment from both United Kingdom and foreign firms, as well as investment from existing firms in the area.
The new map represents the Government's assessment of those areas which now face structural unemployment problems. There are some major differences from the previous map. This is not surprising. Unemployment patterns have changed significantly. For example, unemployment in south-east England increased from 8·4 per cent. of the work force in 1984 to 10·1 per cent. for the year to June 1993. Several areas have seen their relative employment position improve markedly. Closures or manpower reductions at defence establishments or major defence suppliers have hit localities particularly hard. In other areas, known major job losses in prospect will have serious effects on the local economy.
We have addressed those issues in a comprehensive review. Measures of unemployment have been the major factor in our consideration. We have examined current rates, the record of unemployment in an area over the past five years and the pattern of long-term unemployment, as well as trying to gauge future need for new jobs in each travel-to-work area. We have also weighed carefully the arguments put to us in the consultation process.
Clearly all those factors could not be accommodated in an automatic statistical process. We have had to make judgments about the extent of the structural problems of an area, the strength of local economies and the present status of an area and its neighbouring areas. The methodology used in the review is set out in the background document. Copies of this are available to the public on request.
The new map covers 33·8 per cent. of the working population of Great Britain. That is a little less than the 35 per cent. covered by the previous map, but the coverage of development areas at 16 per cent. is slightly higher. The

map sets out those areas that we consider are in most need of assistance in Great Britain today and it includes many areas previously assisted.
The new map takes account of the level of unemployment in London. The inclusion of parts of Lea Valley, Park Royal and the London end of the east Thames corridor is a demonstration that the Government are fully aware of the serious unemployment problems in some London boroughs. In designating those parts of the capital, we sought to assist new investment in areas where there are substantial available sites and where infrastructure connections are good. Assisted area status will increase employment opportunities throughout the capital, but particularly in boroughs with the highest current unemployment rates.
Parts of the eastern and wider south-east regions are designated in the map. We have, for example, recognised the extremely high unemployment rates and structural problems currently faced by east Kent.
We recognised also the problems of some coastal towns —Great Yarmouth, Skegness and Hastings appear in the new map. Some areas previously heavily dependent on defence work face serious difficulties of adjustment. For that reason, Barrow and Weymouth, for example, come into the map while Fishguard and Haverfordwest are upgraded.
Substantial coverage in the east midlands and in Yorkshire will help coal closure areas with the task of regeneration. High unemployment in the west midlands is recognised by upgrading Wolverhampton and part of Birmingham.
The shape and overall coverage of the map for Scotland remains broadly unaltered. However, some adjustments to the status of individual travel-to-work-areas have been made to reflect changes in their relative circumstances.
While coverage in Wales has been reduced to reflect the relative improvement in unemployment levels in many parts of Wales, we took particular account of other policies and programmes of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—including the programme for the valleys and the west of Wales task force—as well as the position of north-east Wales in relation to other travel-to-work areas.
I recognise that there will be disappointment in areas failing to gain designation or losing assisted area status. We had difficult choices to make, but it is right to ensure that assistance is concentrated on those areas with the most serious problems.
As I said, the new map will come into operation on 1 August, so businesses that have been engaged in pre-application discussions with Departments under the various regional schemes will have an opportunity to complete formal application procedures before the changes take effect. Offers that have already been made will of course be honoured.
I emphasise that there is no direct connection between the assisted areas map and the structural funds maps. Those regions that are designated as assisted areas in the United Kingdom have no automatic right to objective 2 or 5(b) status under structural funds. Now that the structural funds regulations have been adopted, the Government will set in hand the procedures for determining which areas they should propose to the Commission for designation under objectives 2 and 5(b). As the House knows, objective I status has already been obtained by the Government for Merseyside and the highlands and islands.
In conclusion, many complex issues have been considered in this review. Our decisions were arrived at in a rational and structured way. The new map responds to the current position in the country and gives help where it is needed to enable areas to take full advantage of the recovery from recession. Assisted area status will give all designated areas the opportunity to attract new investment and to provide new jobs.

Mr. Robin Cook: I understand why the Minister did not find it attractive to make a statement on Friday about changes due to be introduced on 1 August. After all, it was not at all clear last Friday that the Government would last until 1 August. Now that it looks as though the Government may hold together until Sunday, I am glad that the Minister shared our view that the House should have an opportunity to discuss a statement which has an immediate and direct effect on local economies and which—as was demonstrated a moment ago—is of immediate concern to many constituencies.
Does the Minister accept that I understand why Ministers have had to extend regional aid to towns in the south, where their policies have turned past prosperity into mass unemployment? Will he confirm that Clacton, Dorchester, Dover, Harwich, Hastings and Torbay have all seen their unemployment rate double in the three years since the present Prime Minister took office in No, 10? Does he admit that the new map which he has just unveiled is a confession of how fast the economies of these towns have declined over three years during 'which they have been ruled by a Conservative Government in Whitehall and represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament in Westminster?
May I ask the Minister, however, to square the pride that he has just expressed at extending the areas eligible for regional aid with his Department's spending plans, which show a cut in the budget to pay for it? Will he confirm that spending on regional aid this year is now at a mere fifth of the same budget in 1979, although unemployment has almost trebled? Can he confirm that over the past four years, even in a time of recession, this Government have halved the budget for regional aid? Can he explain to the House why he is spending less on regional aid when he has just admitted that there are more towns which need that help? Will the Minister also confirm that his statement does not contain a single extra penny to redress those cuts?
Is it that cut in the budget which explains why the Minister is paying for the extensions to his map by taking away help from towns that still need support? May I challenge him to name a single area that he has downgraded where unemployment has gone down since the present Prime Minister took office? If he cannot name such an area, will he admit that unemployment has gone up in every single one of the 20 areas that he has relegated? Can he explain why his review has left those communities with less help for more unemployment?
The Minister cannot have failed to notice the criticism that, of all the areas downgraded, only Corby is to the south-east of the midlands. Can he confirm that 17 of the 20 areas to lose out are in England, north of the midlands, or in Scotland, or in Wales? These are the parts of Britain furthest away from the big markets of Europe. They need extra support if they are to succeed against the extra costs of getting their goods to the centre of Europe. How can the Minister justify asking the parts of Britain with the highest

costs of getting to Europe to shoulder the biggest cuts in regional aid? Given that Britain already has one of the most centralised economies in Europe, is it not an odd version of regional policy that gives less help to the regions furthest from the centre?
Britain already spends less on regional aid and less on support for manufacturing than the other member states of the European Community. Wealthier countries, such as Germany and Belgium, spend three times as much per head as we do on state aids to industry. Even poorer countries, such as Greece and Ireland, spend more than we do. What Britain needs is not just a Government who reshuffle the map to show which towns have slipped down the league table. What we need is a Government who will lift Britain from the bottom of the league and stop pretending that we can solve a growing problem on a shrinking budget.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman referred to the size of the budget. I remind him that we are concerned here with a budget that is targeted at where help is really needed. As he will recall, in 1979 we had regional development grants, which was a very indiscriminate way of helping the regions. The change to regional selective assistance has produced benefits. As the recent scrutiny showed, we have a budget that produces really good value for the money spent.
In view of the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman's party for supporting measures from Brussels that would seriously damage the competitiveness of our industry, I am somewhat surprised by his reference to taking away help. As he knows, the size of the map is determined by, or is subject to, the approval of the Commission. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, because the Commission has to approve the size of the maps for all member states, which helps to keep down state aid and which creates a level playing field for our industry. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that and recognise that adding an area which is more in need of help necessarily means that an area that is less in need of help comes off the list.
We all know that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is a well-acknowledged expert at seeing the gloomy side of every silver lining; clouds are always in his sight. In those circumstances, I would have been surprised if he had drawn attention to the fact that, since the last map was drawn, unemployment has dropped—and in some cases has dropped very significantly—in the north, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside and the east and west midlands. Does not the hon. Gentleman find that a matter for welcome and an explanation of why there have been changes? Or is it perhaps that the Labour party does not really want to represent the whole country, but wants to be selective? It is the hon. Gentleman's credentials on political impartiality that need to be examined.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. It must be pretty obvious to the House that I cannot call all the hon. Members who are standing—[Interruption.] Because I must safeguard the interests of private Members and the other business on the Order Paper. Therefore, I ask that questions be brisk and that answers be equally brisk.

Mr. Michael Alison: May I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend on behalf of my constituents and


myself in that some parts of Selby district lying within the Castleford and Pontefract travel-to-work area, notably the town of Sherburn, have been included for the first time for intermediate area status? We are deeply obliged to my right hon. Friend for that. He may not appreciate that Sherburn does not have as severe an unemployment problem as that in parts of the town of Selby which lie in an adjoining travel-to-work area. Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to agree to receive a small deputation as soon as possible to argue the case for objective 2 status for parts of the town of Selby?

Mr. Sainsbury: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his kind remarks. Representations made by him, and by hon. Members from all parts of the House, were very helpful in assisting us to arrive at the right conclusion in respect of the map.
With regard to objectives 2 and 5(b) status under the structural funds, the regulations have only just been agreed. Indeed, they were agreed at 5.30 am last Tuesday in Brussels. We will send out a document very shortly about the consultation process that we will enter into. I will, of course, be very willing to receive representations.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As I represent the constituency with the lowest unemployment in the United Kingdom, I have no axe to grind in this particular context and I recognise the Government's case for the review. My only request is that the travel-to-work areas should be reviewed soon and sensibly so that we do not have the nonsense of areas like the summit of Ben Macdui being within the Aberdeen travel-to-work area.
There will, of course, be disappointment where there has been loss and appreciation among my hon. Friends where areas have retained or enhanced their status. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) would like to be associated with that. Nevertheless, will the Minister accept that as long as we have these periodic reviews, they are, in effect, a testament to failure? We need to ensure that we have a programme to eliminate unemployment in this country and to ensure that we can all benefit from prosperity and low unemployment.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman displayed the usual Liberal Democrat party skill in respect of sitting on the fence about sitting on the fence. He was not quite clear whether, on behalf of some of his Friends, he wanted to welcome the announcement or to criticise it.
With regard to the travel-to-work areas, we do not yet have, and will not have for 18 months or so, the sensitive data that will enable us to calculate new travel-to-work areas. I have said that the map will last for at least three years. Obviously, when we have that sensitive data and we can see the shape of the new travel-to-work areas, we will take account of the implications of that, including the implications in respect of the summit of any mountain, whether in England or anywhere else.

Dame Peggy Fenner: Although I recognise why my right hon. Friend has included east Kent, its inclusion will make it particularly difficult for the Medway towns which fit the criteria of relying heavily on defence work. My constituency has lost the naval base and its

largest employer, an aircraft and avionics company. Will my right hon. Friend co-ordinate activities with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and reconsider a small extension of enterprise zones so that we may compete with east Kent for a rightful share of industry?

Mr. Sainsbury: I can understand my hon. Friend's reaction. Considerable sums of Government money have gone into the Medway towns, particularly in respect of the much applauded Chatham dockyard redeployment. On the defence point, there might be representations from my hon. Friend's area in respect of the Konver funds which are available.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Is it not already obvious that the statement is mainly a product of pork barrel politics? Does the Minister accept that the relative increase in unemployment in south-east England is far more cyclical than structural and that there is a case for new assistance? As that case exists, such new assistance should come from additional funds and not from the reallocation of funds. As south-east England is obviously nearest to the European mainland and the channel tunnel link, and as it benefits most from the reduction in interest rates, is it not obvious that the circumstances do not warrant the reduction in status for assistance as in other parts of the United Kingdom? Is it not obvious on any assessment that the statement comes about not as a product of the examination of economic realities but as a result of political expediency?

Mr. Sainsbury: The right hon. Gentleman does not do himself justice. He seems to support his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in suggesting that there should be unlimited state aids available not only in this country but elsewhere. I should have hoped that, on this matter at least, he would support the Brussels Commission's efforts to restrain the availability of state aids and therefore help our industry.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to pork barrel politics. With respect, that term should be used with care in respect of Wales. After all, the unemployment rate in Wales is the same as that for the whole of Great Britain, yet more than 70 per cent. of the working population in Wales are covered by assisted areas. There are good reasons for that. They recognise the points that I made in the statement, but I scarcely think that they are grounds for complaint.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is great disappointment in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) at the fact that we have not acquired assisted area status. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will be happy to meet a delegation from Blackpool, led by my hon. Friend and myself, to discuss objectives 2 and 5(b) status? Does he accept that we have very severe structural unemployment, including three in 10 male unemployment in the centre of Blackpool? When my right hon. Friend reconsiders the way in which travel-to-work areas are calculated, will he bear in mind that Blackpool's case for assisted area status has once again been damaged by the fact that it is surrounded by Fylde and Wyre, which have very low unemployment, and that Blackpool has problems of its own?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position regarding the United Kingdom would be made very much better if the former Opposition Member who became a European Commissioner, Mr. Millan, did not continue to block tourist-related areas from objective 2 status? That does enormous harm, as would the Opposition's desire to impose the social chapter.

Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate the concern and disappointment in my hon. Friend's constituency and, I am afraid, in other areas throughout the country. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) made expert representations on behalf of their constituencies. Of course I shall be happy to meet a delegation; and I note my hon. Friend's other remarks about the important subject of tourism.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Does not the Minister's statement reek of political corruption? Why did Enfield get assisted area status ahead of Leyton, for example? On any criterion of need such as unemployment, my constituency is far ahead. Could it be that the right hon. Gentleman's boss at the Department of Trade and Industry is an Enfield Member, as is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? Is this not a contemptibly corrupt statement?

Mr. Sainsbury: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the President of the Board of Trade is the Member of Parliament for Henley, not Enfield?

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), then.

Mr. Sainsbury: The important point that the hon. Gentleman should recognise is that if he were as familiar with the Lea valley as I am, he would know that it has major sites of existing industry and sites available for new industry. I suspect that many people in his constituency work in that area and others who, sadly, have not got jobs at present could easily travel to that area if new jobs were created there. That is why it makes sense to us to target help where it will produce the greatest benefit.

Mr. William Powell: As the Member for a constituency that is apparently a victim of pork barrel politics, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and welcome it on behalf of the former assisted area of Corby? My right hon. Friend should be aware that assisted area status was one, but only one, of the factors that enabled such a remarkable transformation in the industrial and commercial scene of Corby to take place. We are grateful for what the Government have done in the past decade, and we recognise that the time had come for other areas to receive some of the benefits given to Corby.
I should like to question my right hon. Friend on one matter. Assisted area status also prised open the opportunity to receive derelict land grant, which was vital to the reconstruction of Corby. Now that assisted area status has been removed from Corby, will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that derelict land grant can continue to flow to Corby, because the job of restoring that land is not yet finished?

Mr. Sainsbury: I much appreciate what my hon. Friend has said in respect of his constituency, on behalf of which he has made energetic representations. He has struck exactly the right note. Corby's economy has been

transformed in part as a result of the assistance it received through the assisted area map, but largely because of the efforts made by those in all parts of the Chamber, the private sector, and local government and because of central Government help. To build on that success is surely the way forward for areas such as Corby, because they have reduced unemployment, achieved success and, as a consequence, are no longer eligible for assisted area status.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: When the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, he said that the arrangements announced today were made to assist those areas with the most serious problems. Can he then explain why it is that the Sutton Coldfield constituency, which ranks 552nd in terms of the unemployment rate, with 6·4 per cent. unemployed, has been upgraded, while my constituency, 37th in the unemployment table, with 18·2 per cent. unemployment and 25·4 per cent. male unemployment, has got no help at all? Sutton Coldfield is, of course, the constituency of the chairman of the Conservative party.
Given that the Government have taken away housing programme funding, section 11 funding and urban programme funding from my constituency and reduced the benefits to the poor and deprived who live in my constituency, is it surprising that my constituents use the word about the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister uses about members of the Cabinet?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman does not serve his interests or those of his constituents with that type of remark. May I remind him that, in 1984, unemployment in Manchester was 13·2 per cent., which put Manchester exactly within the worst third in terms of those in the working population? Unemployment in Manchester is now 10·5 per cent., which means that it is not even within the worst half in terms of those not in the working population.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: My right hon. Friend has a deservedly high reputation in this House for integrity. He will share my disappointment at the fact that Brighton and Hove have not been included. Can he see any possibility of helping the Brighton and Hove travel-to-work area, given that we cannot now fairly compete in persuading firms to come to the two towns because others will be able to bribe them to go elsewhere? Will he consult his colleagues on other ways of helping these areas?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening remark. I know that Brighton and Hove have no more energetic supporter than my hon. Friend. I also know of the disappointment in the area at not being designated. As I have said, inevitably some areas that were close to inclusion had to be left out because of the limit. I hope that Brighton and Hove will gain additional strength in attracting investment and more jobs from the considerable improvements made to the A23 and the bypass—improvements funded by Government money. They will help to further the attractiveness of the area.

Mr. Alan Milburn: Does the Minister realise that stripping Darlington of assisted area status is a devastating blow not just to the town but to a region that has had the highest unemployment rate in every month since the Government came to power? Is he not aware that his policy of cutting regional aid spending at a time of


recession is economically illiterate and has forced hundreds of areas to compete for slices of an ever-diminishing regional aid cake? Why should Darlington be sacrificed so that the right hon. Gentleman can gerrymander the new assisted areas map in a vain attempt to prop up crumbling Tory support both across the country and particularly in southern England? Does he not realise that his announcement is a slap in the face for the business community in Darlington, and that the Government will not be forgiven for having written off the town?

Mr. Sainsbury: I think that the hon. Gentleman is another one who would not recognise success if it fell on him. In 1984, Darlington's unemployment rate was 13.3 per cent.; for the year to June 1993, it has been 9.3 per cent., which means that it is two thirds—65·2 per cent. —down the list of the worst areas for unemployment. Yet the hon. Gentleman still claims that special help is needed. Instead, he should recognise the success achieved by the private sector in his constituency.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there is a good deal of dismay in areas that have not sustained their assisted area status? May I draw his attention in particular to the dismay felt in the Cinderford and Ross-on-Wye travel-to-work area, part of which lies in my patch? A number of those who have been teaming together to create employment opportunities feel that their work is not yet done, and it would be helpful if my right hon. Friend were kind enough to state the predominant reasons for the withdrawal of assisted area status from the area.
When would it be appropriate to take a delegation to see my right hon. Friend to discuss the question of objective 5(b) status, given the stress caused in rural areas, especially in the marches, by changes in the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate the disappointment in my hon. Friend's constituency at the loss of intermediate area status. My hon. Friend asked me about the most important factors involved in that. As we made clear in the consultation and background documents, measures of unemployment are the principal factors, but they are not the only ones that we took into account. On that basis, current unemployment in the Cinderford and Ross-on-Wye travel-to-work area is fractionally above the national average, and on the five-year average the area only just gets into the worst 60 per cent., not the worst 33 per cent.
I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend and a delegation about objective 5(b) or objective 2 status in the near future.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the Minister explain why an area like Salford, with all its problems of high unemployment, crime and so on, has been excluded from the map?

Mr. Sainsbury: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are retaining support for Trafford Park where, I suspect, many of his constituents already work. If additional employment were created there, it would provide opportunities for his constituents and others in the Manchester and Salford area. As Manchester is one large travel-to-work area, the comments about overall

unemployment which I made to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) also apply in this case.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Will my right hon. Friend accept the warmest possible congratulations and thanks from those of us in Cumbria who recently did our best to persuade him to grant assisted area status to parts of Cumbria? The inclusion of Barrow, and an area around it which is in my constituency, among those areas granted intermediate status will be especially welcome, but will he please talk to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport because one of Barrow's main problems is the road links with the M6? Portions of that road in my constituency require urgent improvement, and that would be one of the quickest ways to help Barrow.

Mr. Sainsbury: I thank my right hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I was very impressed by the representations that he and others made when I visited the area and back in London. I shall, of course, pass his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is fair to say that, if I followed the Opposition's suggestions, new areas of Cumbria and Barrow-in-Furness would not have been included in the map because it would not have been possible.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: The elevation of the Fishguard area to full development status is welcome, but the relegation of Cardigan, which is covered by the west Wales task force, from full development area status to intermediate status makes very little sense. The relegation of Lampeter and Aberaeron from full development status to no status makes even less sense. Bearing in mind the fact that those areas have deep structural problems, including that of depopulation and migration of the young, is it not clear that the Minister was determined that Wales should suffer from the process a net reduction in assistance?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at the start of his question, but I must point out that in the Lampeter and Aberavon travel-to-work area—

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Aberaeron.

Mr. Sainsbury: Aberaeron. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff somewhere for his help.
The point in which I think that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) is interested is that the unemployment rate dropped from 12 per cent. to 7·6 per cent. As I said earlier in relation to the unemployment rate in Wales as a whole, it would surely be unrealistic not to reflect in the map some of the considerable success that has been achieved in stimulating employment in Wales and especially in attracting inward investment, which would, of course, be drastically discouraged if we were to saddle ourselves with the social chapter.

Mr. Roger Gale: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and my constituents, may I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has represented the United Kingdom's interests in the negotiations with the European Commissioners? Will he contrast the mealy-mouthed reception from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr.


Cook) with the generous reception given by the Local authority in Corby which, having seen the success of assisted area status there, has offered its expertise to Local authorities in east Kent? Is it not a fact that east Kent will now be able to compete with northern France on equal terms for jobs not only for east Kent but for the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Sainsbury: I can do no more than say that my hon. Friend's response is surely the right one on behalf of his constituents and the people of the whole of east Kent. They will be able to take the opportunities provided by the availability of regional selective assessment to build their economy and ensure that they are soon in the same position as Corby. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about seeking to represent the whole of Great Britain, and not just a part of it.

Mr. Peter Shore: Although I welcome the long overdue inclusion of some depressed parts of London in the list of assisted areas.. will the Minister explain why and on what grounds he has excluded the notoriously hard-pressed boroughs of east London, especially my own borough of Tower Hamlets, where unemployment has been running at more than 20 per cent. for many years?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am conscious of the unacceptably high levels of unemployment in the right hon. Gentleman's borough. He will be aware of the many urban programmes, including the London Docklands development corporation, that benefit the area. He will also be aware that the areas that we have designated in London have available industrial premises and space for the creation of additional investment and employment. If that happpens, and we hope that it will as a result of the measures that we have taken, those employment opportunies will be available to people in that whole travel-to-work area, which is reasonably near his constituency.

Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is believed that Southend was on the original list for assisted area help and that my constituents and I are astonished that it was withdrawn from his proposals at the last minute? Will he say whether that is the case and, if so, why?
Will my right hon. Friend also be prepared to meet Southend council, our hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and myself to discuss ways of getting help under objective 2 status?

Mr. Sainsbury: There were areas around the margin of eligibility for inclusion in the map, which would have been included had the map covered a larger area of the working population of Great Britain. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is right that the Commission should exercise constraint on the overall coverage, as it does in other countries. For instance, the German map has now been reduced by 2 per cent.—much more than ours. In those circumstances, there were unfortunately areas that had to be omitted and I recognise that Southend was one.
I should be happy to receive a delegation of my right hon. Friend, his hon. Friend and councillors to discuss the matters that he has raised.

Mr. Ken Purchase: It is welcome that Wolverhampton enjoys its new status, along with Birmingham, and the Minister will be encouraged that, in the past, Wolverhampton has put together a team of excellent workers who have managed to lever European funds from other areas. Against that and the disadvantage to other areas from which Wolverhampton will receive its new support, it must be recognised that in 1979 Wolverhampton was part of the second wealthiest region in the United Kingdom. Now it shares the distinction with Northern Ireland of being one of the poorest. Fourteen years of Conservative rule have brought such a map into being.
I share the opinion of my local chamber of commerce, and more so with the Wolverhampton Express and Star—a Tory paper if ever there was one—that it is a tragedy that Wolverhampton, Birmingham and the west midlands have to receive special treatment to overcome the difficulties brought about by the economic policies of the Government. The Minister ought to ask himself what the Government should be doing to put the economy of the country right rather than messing about with maps.

Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can persuade some of the doubting Thomases on the Opposition Benches that the map is targeted at the areas that need help and that it responds to changes in economic circumstances. That is the realistic answer to some of the questions that have been asked by his hon. and right hon. Friends.
I hope that we shall see Wolverhampton re-establishing its levels of employment and industrial expertise to those of the days when I remember that Wolverhampton Wanderers played better football than Manchester United.

Dr. Ian Twinn: In contrast to the carping and negative attitude of Opposition Members, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his Department's recognition of the desperate structural needs of industry in the south, especially in the Lea valley? As one of the Enfield Members of Parliament, may I say that our constituents in Enfield, North and Edmonton will notice that the attitude of Opposition Members and the Labour party is of not wanting to create new jobs in those areas, especially in north London.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for his appreciation of what has been done. He has put his finger on the essential point that, if we had followed the approach of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and his friends, there would have been no changes to the map and no relatively worse off areas would have been able to receive help.

Mr. John McFall: The heart-breaking aspect for my constituents is that the information on which the list was compiled is out of date. Unemployment in 12 of the winners has fallen by 10 to 46 per cent. in the past six months, yet my constituency, which has had a 7 per cent. fall, is a loser. My constituency still qualifies on the three criteria that the Minister stated—present unemployment, long-term unemployment and growth potential. Will the Minister meet a delegation from the local enterprise company and the council to ensure that


Dumbarton retains its full development status? Dumbarton's figures are more up to date than those of the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sorrow at Dumbarton being downgraded from a development area to an intermediate area, but I know that my hon. Friend with responsibilities for industry in Scotland will be happy to see him this week. Unemployment in the Dumbarton travel-to-work area is well above the worst third in the country, which the hon. Gentleman should take into account.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is not only disappointment but concern in Portsmouth that the criteria that he used in drawing up his map failed to identify areas of social and economic deprivation in the city, which are the equivalent of that anywhere else in the country but which the city is unable easily to rectify because of the long-term rundown of the defence commitment, which is part of the Government's policy? In those circumstances, does he feel that he has a responsibility to offer help to Portsmouth?

Mr. Sainsbury: I can understand my hon. Friend's reaction. We carefully considered the implications of the defence review, all the changes in the Navy and their impact on his constituents. I hope that he will recognise that there are swings and roundabouts: some naval activities in the area will increase, whereas others will be run down. I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) made energetic representations on behalf of the Portsmouth travel-to-work area, but I had to take into account not only the overall effect of defence changes but the fact that Portsmouth is not in the worst third for current unemployment and is well below the British average for five-year unemployment. Unemployment measures were the main measures that we took into account.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Is the Minister aware of the disappointment in areas such as Scunthorpe that have lost full development status and have gone to nothing? The way in which unemployment is calculated leads areas such as Scunthorpe to have little confidence because it has been changed and messed around so much over the years. Is he aware that millions of pounds of public money have been spent on site reclamation, the benefit of which is only now being felt? It will be difficult to attract industry to Scunthorpe when it is surrounded by areas that have status.
Will the Minister meet a delegation from the councils concerned when he reviews the travel-to-word areas in the second half of 1994 to consider the impact of the changes on an area that is suffering from long-term structural change and does not need a quick fix in terms of political need?

Mr. Sainsbury: It is a little early to start talking about delegations when we have—[Interruption.] Wait for it—the information on new travel-to-work areas. Consideration of objective 2 and/or objective 5(b) status is in the immediate future. The new travel-to-work areas will not be considered before 1995 at the earliest.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in his travel-to-work area is only 9·7 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS:

"Only?".]—which, although still too high, is below the national average? Does he believe that Scunthorpe has achieved a great success in restoring employment opportunities after the losses that occurred at the end of the 1970s and early 1980s? Will he welcome the forthcoming opening by Kimberly-Clark as a major new employment opportunity in his area as a result of Government help that the area received?

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he very much had regard to the considerable changes that will take place in Dover and Deal as a result of the channel tunnel, the single European market and the problems of competition from the Nord-Pas de Calais region when he listened to the representations that I made at the seven meetings that I had with him and the President of the Board of Trade on this important issue?
Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that it has been disappointing that the Labour party has not actively supported the south-east of England getting assisted area status, especially Dover and Deal, whose people are very grateful to the Government for recognising the considerable change that is about to take place and for the support that they are now giving the area?

Mr. Sainsbury: I agree with my hon. Friend about the attitude of the Opposition to assisted area status in parts of east Kent and the south-east. If a league table were based on the energy and effectiveness of the representations made on behalf of any area, I think that my hon. Friend would be near the top of it. I am sure that he will recognise that Dover and Deal would not have been included purely on the employment factors, but, taking account of the looming problems to which he referred, we clearly had a situation that deserved support.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is not it true that the statement and delaying of the order have been held back so that the rejigging and gerrymandering of assisted area status can be used to bribe anti-Maastricht Tory Members of Parliament? There is no reason why the order could not have been laid several weeks ago and come before the House for debate in the usual way.
The people of Bradford will feel outraged that the Minister is removing assisted area status from Bradford when they have been denied section I I grant and, as with many other areas, have been removed from urban aid grant, and when there are 552 vacancies with 25,000 people on the dole as a result of the Government's policies.
Does the Minister not realise that Bradford depends on manufacturing more than the national average, particularly on textiles and engineering, and both those industries are facing severe difficulty? It is a disgrace, and the Minister should know it.

Mr. Sainsbury: It is not possible for us to declare the result of our review before Friday at the earliest, because the Commission—the European Commission; the hon. Gentleman will have heard of it—has not approved our map. The map is subject to its approval because the aid given under regional selective assistance is state aid, so that his first allegation is nonsense.
It is perhaps not surprising that we should hear nonsense from the hon. Gentleman. He gave a splendid impersonation to Bradford of outrage. May I say to "Outraged of Bradford" that, in 1984, unemployment in Bradford was at 13·5 per cent., which put it in the worst


third of unemployment areas of the country. It is now 10·6 per cent. and Bradford is only just inside the worst half. That is one of the factors that we took into account in deciding where the aid should best be targeted.

Mr. David Evennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. In particular, I warmly welcome the inclusion in his list of the London end of the east Thames corridor. My constituents in the wards of Belvedere, Erith, North End and Thamesmead East will be delighted, because they have had structural unemployment in those areas for so long.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the east Thames corridor has tremendous potential, and his announcement this afternoon will help to realise it?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, and entirely agree about the potential of the east Thames corridor. I hope that, with the help of the measures that I have mentioned in the statement. that potential will be realised in the near future to the benefit of his constituents.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the context of the structural funds, will the Minister accept that there was a warm welcome given to the recognition of the long, hard-fought local campaign to include the whole of the enterprise area in Highlands and Islands for objective 1 status?
Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to announce the exact figure that will be allocated, given the unhelpful speculation following on from the attitude of the Irish representatives at the Commission? Can he give us an exact timetable for the procedures that are to be observed in negotiations for 5(b) status, which is important, particularly to the fishing communities of the north-east of Scotland?

Mr. Sainsbury: First, I express my thanks for the hon. Lady's remarks about what she described as a long and hard-fought campaign. From my personal experience, I can say that it was indeed very long. It was about the hardest-fought campaign that I have experienced, among many, in respect of the European Community.
With regard to the sums of money involved, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making an announcement in the near future.

Sir Roger Moate: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the courageous way in which he tackled what is self-evidently a difficult task and thank him for his courtesy and consideration in doing it, particularly in recognising that parts of the south-east have persistent and structural unemployment problems. Unemployment in my constituency is 14·2 per cent.—something that is unknown to the Labour party, or perhaps it does not even care.
Will my right hon. Friend say what the likely duration of the map will be? The previous map survived for nine years. In his statement, he says that it is expected to last at least three years, but three years is too short a planning period for many industrial investments. Can he reassure us that that is seen as the minimum and is likely to be much longer?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, and I was glad to have the opportunity to see for

myself at first hand the situation in his constituency and to receive representations both from him and the public and private sectors in his constituency.
With regard to the duration of the map, we have said at least three years because it will not be much before the end of three years that we have information relating to the new travel-to-work areas. We should not prejudge the duration of the map beyond that because we may find that the new travel-to-work areas show that there should be changes. When we make the next review, I assure my hon. Friend that, as was the case with this review, we shall take into account the statistics and not the political gerrymandering that seems to be preferred by the Labour party.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When the people of Workington, where unemployment is 15·1 per cent. on the narrow base rate, learnt of their downgrading from development area status, they were astonished, astounded and angry. Despite what the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said, let me make it clear to him that Yorkshire farmers know nothing about west Cumberland. Workington has a new factory of 500,000 sq ft that is empty, which the Leyland bus plant formerly occupied. Can the Minister find us a tenant or a buyer in the conditions of the new intermediate area status, because if we can fill that site, many of Workington's problems will be resolved?

Mr. Sainsbury: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the problems in his constituency, and I know that the unemployment level there is far higher than either of us would like to see. However, I hope that he will recognise, with regard to the downgrading from development to intermediate area status, that the constituency's unemployment rate does not put it in the worst 15 per cent. on either current or five-year average unemployment. Those are factors to which we have to have regard. I hope that, as a result of the combined efforts of the private sector, local authorities and central Government, we shall be able to find a tenant and provide more employment opportunities for his constituents.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although there must be some disappointment in Teignbridge that it was not possible to extend to a greater extent the intermediate status, nevertheless the settlement for the west country is truly excellent? As the prosperity of Teinbridge depends on the prosperity of the west country, the decision that he has announced today will be greatly welcomed.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am particularly grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the west country, and I also appreciate what he said about his constituency; I understand his disappointment that only a small part of it receives assisted area status. I am more than a little surprised that neither from the Labour nor from the Liberal Benches have we had a word of thanks on behalf of the south-west.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Coalfield communities face real challenges and real difficulties. In the Nottinghamshire coalfield, 40,000 people worked in the industry in 1980 and, in a few weeks' time, that number will shrink to 4,000. In the space of 13 unlucky years, nine out of every 10 mining jobs will have gone. Given that, will the Minister consider including in the Nottingham travel-to-work area places such as Hucknall, which has


lost its pits, and Calverton, which may lose its colliery, so that they may have a chance of new investment, new jobs and a new future?

Mr. Sainsbury: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about employment opportunities for those who formerly worked in the coal industry. I hope that he will recognise that in what we have done—for example, in respect of Mansfield, which moved straight from non-assisted area status to development area status, or Chesterfield, which moved from non-assisted area to intermediate area status—we are responding, in as an effective and well targeted way as we can, to the needs of the areas to which he referred.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, and I also thank him on behalf of my constituents and the delegation that I brought to see him. He will be aware that the decision to restore assisted area status to Torbay will be greatly welcomed. Will he assure the House that his Department will do everything possible to help local authorities in those areas that have been granted intermediate status so that they may exploit European and other funds to the maximum?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said and assure him that, as always, my Department will do all that it can to help local authorities to attract inward investment and in any negotiations with the European Community.

Mr. John Morris: In an attempt to assist the Minister to distinguish between Aberaeron and Aberavon, may I point out to him that there will be intense disappointment that Port Talbot and Neath have been reduced to an intermediate area? An announcement was made last Thursday that Freeman's factory would close next March. How will new factors, which have arisen since the map was cobbled together, assist the situation in the future? When can the map be reopened?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the right hon. and learned Member will recognise the considerable progress made in reducing unemployment in his constituency, or the travel-to-work area in which it is sited, from 16·8 to 10 per cent.—from well above to below the national average. I hope that we shall continue to build on that success.
As I have made clear, the present map should last for at least three years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) said, we need a period of stability for people to benefit from the opportunity to carry out investment projects or to make inward investments which will provide work for a reasonable period.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that, far from being omitted, Southend-on-Sea was removed from the list that the Government presented to the Commission on 15 June? Will he bear in mind that, as a result of the Commissioner instructing the Government to reduce the figure from 35 to 34 per cent., there is widespread disappointment and concern in Southend-on-Sea, particularly as my constituency has 14·5 per cent. unemployment? If any area in the south-east deserves help, it is Southend-on-Sea.

Mr. Sainsbury: I understand the concern of my hon. Friend's constituents. Clearly it is a great disappointment when they were near to being included and have had to be left out because of the constraints imposed by the amount of cover that we can give. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do all that we can to assist with regard to any structural fund help that might be available.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister aware that Tameside is one of the two metropolitan boroughs that were not created from a county borough? That causes enormous problems because of the diversity of centres within the borough, and there are associated costs. Will the Minister let me have an analytical breakdown of why Tameside was not given intermediate area status? He said that judgment was used. Is he aware that a distinction needs to be made between judgment and pork barrel politics, which was not clear in this instance?

Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that a clear distinction was made. He is an expert on analysing statistics. I cannot promise to give him an answer off the cuff, but I will write to him in response to his request.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on conducting a difficult piece of work. Will he agree that more parts of London should qualify for this sort of assistance? Will he undertake to keep a close eye on changing patterns of work in London so that fresh areas can be assisted in the near future?

Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall pay close regard to the situation in London before the review of the map in three years' time or so. Meanwhile, London benefits from the measures to which I referred today, and from a large number of urban programmes. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will keep those programmes under close review to ensure that they target help to London as effectively as possible.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: In justifying the downgrading of certain areas, the Minister said that those areas now have lower unemployment than they had in 1984. Will he confirm that Barnstaple, Ilfracombe, Bideford, Clacton, Dover and Deal, Folkestone, Great Yarmouth, Torbay and Thanet all have lower unemployment than in 1984? On that criterion, why have those places been included while places represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends have been excluded? In reply to my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Minister said that Bradford had only 10·6 per cent. unemployment and that Scunthorpe had only 9·7 per cent. Is it not a clear indication of the Government's limited ambitions and moral bankruptcy that they see such figures as low unemployment?
The simple fact is that the Minister has had to announce a map that reflects the Government's economic failure. All of Britain should now be an assisted area because the Government have failed so abysmally.

Mr. Sainsbury: I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise from his Front-Bench position that we are inevitably looking at the scale of change in unemployment and the relative position of different areas. I remind him, as he is another of the


half-empty rather than the half-full glass school, of the relative position of the regions. The northern region, the north-west, the Yorkshire and Humberside region and the east and west midlands have all had significant improvements in unemployment since the last map was drawn, whereas in London and the south-east and south-west unemployment has got worse. That is the reality and the reason for the map that I have produced. It is targeted on areas that most need help.

Points of Order

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that these are not points of frustration. I think that they are, but it must have been obvious that by no means could I call all hon. Members, even those who are directly affected. I am prepared to listen to points of order that relate to our Standing Orders and procedures.

Mr. George Stevenson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the obvious disquiet that remains among many hon. Members about the Government's statement with which we have been occupied for the past hour, would you consider a request for an emergency debate on this serious issue?

Madam Speaker: No, I cannot do that. As hon. Members know, if they catch my eye they can raise this matter on the motion for the Adjournment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. There can be nothing further to that point of order.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had an approach from the Secretary of State for Employment with a view to his coming to the House to make a statement about the collapse of Astra Training Services. which, before it was privatised, provided training for 100,000 people a year but which may now be going out of existence? From this very day, trainees from Astra will no longer get their expenses and there is increasing evidence of financial sharp practice by the company. Most hon. Members, or at least Opposition Members, would have expected the Secretary of State to have been here because he has much explaining to do.

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that any Minister seeks to make a statement today.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Your reply suggests that you have not had an approach from Ministers to come to the House to demonstrate the Government's contempt and disgust at the news that one of the girls who was pardoned by the King of Thailand has been offered £67,000 to make a film. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will make sure that she makes absolutely no money from this disgraceful deal.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right: I have had no request from any Minister to make a statement today.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When you took over your duties as Speaker, you explained that you would follow the practice of previous Speakers and not allow points of order during Question Time but would hear them at this time or at 3.30 pm. We understand the good reasons for that. They are that points of order, many of them not entirely genuine, were often allowed and they disrupted Question Time. However, that practice creates a difficulty, such as occurred today when, inadvertently, questions to the Lord President of the Council were started a full minute early at 3.24. That meant that it was not possible to call questions


Nos. 40 and 41 for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and certain matters could not be raised. The difficulty that that presents to those of us who always behave immaculately in the House is that there was no mechanism for raising a genuine point of order at that time and allowing the questions to be asked in a proper way. Hon. Members were denied the possibility of raising the serious matter of the vermin that have been sighted in the dining areas of the House.

Madam Speaker: I take points of order during Question Time only exceptionally and if they are immediately relevant. There are far too many abuses if I allow a lot of discretion in these matters.

Mr. David Sumberg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, we rise tomorrow for the summer recess. The order in connection with which we have just heard a statement comes into force on I August this year. Can you tell me how I can make it absolutely clear that I am delighted that two thirds of my constituency has received assisted area status—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is demob-happy. I cannot allow such a point of order.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can a Minister from the Department for Education come to the House before the recess to deal with a point raised in a national newspaper on Saturday? It was said that an opted-out school in my borough is refusing to take blind and partially sighted children because it does not suit its criteria. That is a serious matter and we should have the opportunity to debate it with an Education Minister.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should try catching my eye on the motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You recently gave guidance on the sort of words that hon. Members are not allowed to use in the House. When we come back from the summer recess, Opposition Members will wish to criticise Ministers—and will continue to do so, day in and day out. Will we be able to use the expression that the Prime Minister used about three of his Cabinet colleagues, or do you believe that such language would lower the tone of the House?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover need not rise; I can see his hackles rising. Is this further to that point of order?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Madam Speaker. As you know, many years ago, a Member of Parliament referred to "Members of Parliament for hire". It was suggested that such an expression was, prima facie, a breach of privilege and the matter went before the appropriate Committee because those Members of Parliament were not identified. Now we have an example of the Prime Minister specifying that three members of his Cabinet were, to use his word, "bastards". We do not know who they are. Some of today's newspapers have speculated that they are the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Wales—and one other.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Skinner: Of course it is.

Madam Speaker: Not at all. I am not concerned with the language that is used outside the House. I am, however, very much concerned with the language that is used inside the House and therefore I ask all hon. Members to use moderate language. That is the proper, courteous method of debate in the House.

Mr. Winnick: But it was the Prime Minister.

Madam Speaker: I am not concerned about which Minister or Member was involved; I ask that moderate language be used at all times in the House.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that everyone is aware of the importance of the debates and decisions that featured on Thursday and Friday. I wish to raise three points of order relating to them which could have constitutional significance. I have given notice of them.
The first point relates to the text of the social charter. I was informed by the Government in a written reply—it can be found in column 295 of Hansard for 22 July—that they have never published or publicised the text of the social charter. The social charter was debated during the passage of the Bill through the House and last week. If and when there is any further legislation relating to this central matter, as there may well be, can we be assured that the text will be available to those affected beforehand, on the Table of the House and in the Vote Office?
The second point is of more profound significance. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that for several hundred years it has not been the practice of the House to reverse, within a short time at least, a decision which has been taken. Page 362 of the 21st edition of "Erskine May"—the Boulton edition—says:
Proposing a negatived question 'a second time for the decision of the House, would be, as stated earlier, contrary to the established practice of Parliament. Sufficient variation would have to be made, not only from the form but also from the substance of the rejected question, to make the second question a new question.
A very similar question was proposed on Friday to the one that had been negatived the day before. However, in the second there was a distinction, to some extent, because there was no preamble reference to section 7. The second motion asked us to have confidence in the policy of the Government in the social area rather than simply noting it. While the wording may have varied to some extent, the purpose and the effect of accepting both would have been the same. The only change was in method, in that the word "confidence" was introduced in the second motion. Presumably that was on your ruling—otherwise it would have been out of order—and that was at least one area in which the substance was changed.
The use of the word "confidence" introduced a whole range of circumstances that attach to that word and are habitually used in motions of no confidence. But this time it was the opposite; it was proposed by the Government and used in a new way. In using it, the Government might be said to have introduced a hybrid element. The motion had three purposes: to approve the social policy, to show confidence in the Government and to trigger section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act.
It is well known that a vote of no confidence would have resulted in at least a request to the Crown for the dissolution of Parliament. I put it in those terms because whether the request would be granted might be a matter of constitutional debate. But that is beside the point. What should have been taken into consideration is the consequence of a successful request and its effects on hon. Members' livelihoods and those of their families.
The use of the royal prerogative, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in his speech on Friday, resides with the Crown outside the control of the House, albeit on the advice of a Minister or a collection of Ministers, as we are told happened in this case. That is a novel use of this particular power and revives the prerogative powers of the Crown, albeit on the advice of a Minister, against the rights and privileges of hon. Members to speak and vote without constraint on their livelihoods and persons.
The question of documentation on a matter of great constitutional importance; the use, perhaps the precedent, of a hybrid form of confidence motion; and the way in which these matters impinge on the prerogatives and the rights of this House, established in the late 17th century and part of our constitution, are of very great importance.
I do not expect a ruling or comment from you on these matters today, Madam Speaker, in view of the short notice and the short lapse of time since those events. I would ask you to consider them, to note what is said elsewhere, and, if you see fit, to say something about them after the recess.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not give me notice of all the matters that he has raised. I can deal with them because they are precise, although he took some time to explain himself.
First, I do not want to be tedious and repetitious

because I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's first point when the matter was raised with me last week by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave then. The hon. Gentleman seems to allege that Friday's debate was out of order because it amounted to a rescinding of a resolution that was reached on Thursday. The debate was not related to the rescinding of a resolution as the House did not come to a resolution on Thursday. There are no rules that are specifically directed against second attempts to obtain a resolution when the first attempt has failed. I quote "Erskine May", which says that the House must
instinctively realise that parliamentary government requires the majority to abide by a decision regularly come to, however unexpected".
At the outset of proceedings on Friday, I stated that, in my opinion, the Prime Minister's statement of the previous evening had created a new situation and that both the Government motion and the Opposition amendment were perfectly in order. The result of the Division at the conclusion of the debate confirmed my view that that was the case.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you noticed that in connection with the summer Adjournment motion I have tabled an amendment stating that it might be convenient to allow an extension of debates, for example on Wednesday and Thursday, relating to assisted area status?

Madam Speaker: It was remiss of me not to announce that there are two amendments on the Order Paper, neither of which has been selected.

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 27th July, do adjourn until Monday 18th October.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. John Biffen: A little earlier this afternoon, Madam Speaker, you advised us all to use moderate language. I am happy to begin the debate on the summer recess in a spirit of moderation and good will that I hope will secure a most accommodating response from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that I wish to refer to local authority finance. Although I wish to refer to the subject as it relates specifically to Shropshire, I will also touch upon more general areas. Taking a cue from events earlier, I realise that few subjects can generate such commitment as the distribution of national aid to either regions or local authorities. I hope that I will earn my right hon. Friend's good will by addressing my remarks in a spirit of calmness, rather than seeking unjustifiable demands.
There is continuing anxiety in Shropshire about the sparsity factor in the education funds that have been made available by the Government. The matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 13 July. I endorse his remarks and appeal again for proper and equitable regard to be paid to the sparsity factor in considering what may be made available to the county authorities in Shropshire.
I do not wish to make my main remarks about that subject, but to concentrate on the area cost adjustment. As my right hon. Friend will know from his experience before he became Leader of the House, that is a matter of concern as it relates to the distribution of the standard spending assessment. While my remarks will be brief, they carry with them the good will of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). He has now been seduced by the Trappist joys of the Whips' Office and cannot be here to add his voice of moderation.
My right hon. Friend will know that the area cost adjustment concerns the methodology of labour costs, and as a consequence has a premium for London and the south-east. The tenor of questions on the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry was to try to offset a perceived disadvantage for the south from the north in terms of regional aid. I should like to point out to my right hon. Friend that local authority finances are not a seamless robe. There can be certain situations in one respect, and quite contrary situations in another. My remarks this afternoon contrast to some extent with what has been said this afternoon.
My interest is not related merely to the county of Shropshire. That county has been asked by 27 shire counties to carry out an investigation into the impact of the area cost adjustment. They have produced a study that has revealed that employment costs are higher in London, but are not obviously otherwise higher in the south-east. The report says:
Research shows there are no regional pay variations outside London for most local government employees. This includes teachers, fire fighters and uniform policemen.
The fact that the area cost allowance factor has been rising considerably faster than the standard spending assessment further emphasises the work that has been undertaken by

Shropshire on behalf of its sister shire counties. Considerable sums of money are now committed for an item which has been inequitably distributed.
I have three questions that I want to put to my right hon. Friend. I do not expect an answer at the conclusion of the debate, but I should be immensely grateful if he would write to me and gave a considered reply, which I might then make publicly available in Shropshire.
First, has the study undertaken by Shropshire on behalf of the shire counties been received by the Department of the Environment? Secondly, what is the initial reaction of the Department to that study? Thirdly, is it expected that any changes that might be consequential will be implemented in the 1994–95 standard spending assessment?
I shall leave those questions with my right hon. Friend. I believe that my tolerable brevity may encourage him to give a generous and merited reply, and I now leave the field to others.

Mr. Barry Jones: I do not think that the House should rise before there has been an adequate explanation from the Minister who currently heads the Department of Trade and Industry of why my constituency should have been denuded of the prize of assisted area status.
I protest because 3,200 people are out of work in my constituency, of which more than 800 are officially designated as long-term unemployed. Moreover, Shotton steelworks in my constituency put into effect in 1980 the largest redundancy programme ever in western Europe. In a period between Christmas and Easter, more than 8,000 people lost their jobs. The job of reconstructing our local economy has a long way to go yet. My constituents and I have always thought that assisted area status was of prime importance in that reconstruction.
I have studied the decision that the Department of Trade and Industry has made about the boundaries of the areas to retain the status. I cannot see why the larger part of my constituency should have been denuded of the prize. I do know, when I look at the new map, that the people of Wales have had a raw deal. It appears that the status that some parts of Wales previously had has now been taken away and given to southern England. I should have liked the status previously given to Wales to be retained. I would then have said that the Government should give more aid and allow other areas of Britain to benefit from development area status.
On the other side of the River Dee, opposite my constituency, is the area called the Wirral. That area is represented here in the mother of Parliaments by the Secretary of State for Employment, whom we previously knew as Secretary of State for Wales. We note that, across the river, the prized development area status remains. I am not convinced that north-east Wales should lose while, across the river, development area status has been retained, or that the whole of Wales should be denuded of development area status while in southern England there has been an accretion in the areas covered. That cannot be right or just, and I wish to protest.
I want to see my country—Britain—made great again as an industrial power. That can happen only if the Government adopt a strategy which makes it possible for manufacturing industry to prosper. I want manufacturing


industry in Britain to be retained, strengthened and enhanced, but what has happened in the past 10 or 14 years has been virtually the opposite of that objective.
During the time that Her Majesty's Government have worn the colours of the Conservatives, more than 2·5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. That cannot be good for the future. It has been a devastating blow for many communities, individuals, families and homes, not least in my country of Wales.
If we do not have manufacturing industries that prosper, we shall not have the wealth that underpins the welfare state. If we do not have a Government and a Cabinet who are prepared to make manufacturing the top priority, there can be no hope and no future in the next century, which is approaching us with gathering speed. Today, the Government have missed yet another opportunity to show that they care about the foundation of our industrial society—manufacturing.
An example is the steel industry. British Steel, which is lean, fit and productive and has previously been profitable, now faces hard times. It appears that the Government and the Cabinet are not prepared to help the foundation industry in Britain which the steel industry still represents. The one thing that eastern Europe does well is making bulk steel. The problem is that steel is virtually being dumped in western Europe and our markets.
The President of the United States and his Government are prepared to put savage high tariffs on British Steel's exports. I forecast major trouble for our steel industry if they are allowed to continue. Let us examine the details of how our steel industry is coping with the challenge from western Europe and inside the Community.
The British steel industry has made its sacrifices over and over again. Tens of thousands of jobs have been sacrificed in the past decade and earlier. Yet the Spanish and Italian nations are not playing fair. What did the Prime Minister say about that problem when he went to Tokyo recently? I should like to know before the House rises what the Prime Minister did on behalf of the British steel industry.
I have said that I want to see a strong and resurgent manufacturing sector. I cannot see how Britain can become a great industrial nation again unless that happens. Steel is the basis of Britain's manufacturing industry, and it is not receiving fair treatment. It has done all that has been asked of it. In 1980, 8,000 of my constituents were made jobless virtually overnight. They made their sacrifice. The British steel industry has made its sacrifice. We are entitled to ask the Government what They are prepared to do to assist British Steel.
Another good example is the aerospace industry. Redundancies have rained down on Alyn and Deeside. We have a magnificient factory at Broughton in my constituency, which makes the wing of the airbus and the whole of the executive jet. There have been 1,300 job losses in those two activities within one year. I want evidence that the Government are prepared to assist aerospace.
One good thing that has happened recently is the publication of a distinguished and detailed report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry only last week. It said that the United Kingdom aerospace industry, which could still survive, develop and prosper, made a massive contribution to our balance of payments, employed and trained a highly skilled work force, was engaged in wealth creation through the high added value of its products, provided technological spin-offs for other sectors, created

work for other sectors such as machine tooling and computer software, and had the probability of growth in world markets.
That distinguished Committee said that, if the industry was to prosper, money must be made available for more research and technology. I support that fundamental proposal. I believe that a figure of £80 million was mentioned and that the Committee said that it should be delivered urgently.
I cannot see an industrial future for Great Britain unless our Government, our Cabinet and our nation invest in steel and aerospace. I urge the Leader of the House to take up the points that I have raised when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Roberts Hicks: I wish to raise with Ministers two essentially west country issues before we rise for the summer recess—the future of our west country regional air link between Plymouth and Newquay and London Heathrow, and water and sewerage charges in Devon and Cornwall. The second subject has already been considered by the House several times.
Central to the current level of water charges is the enormous investment programme which South West Water is obliged to undertake to meet EC water quality and sewage treatment standards. The total figure involved is more than £1 billion, of which water quality represents £450 million, inland sewerage schemes represent £350 million and coastal sewerage represents more than £400 million of investment. Those staggering financial requirements reflect a neglect of investment in the past, and the fact that Devon and Cornwall have a long geographical coastline.
It is equally valid when considering the charges paid by the consumer to take it into account that almost 80 per cent. of the revenue obtained by South West Water from customers is used for investment purposes. Furthermore, the area is relatively sparsely populated. Apart from Plymouth and Exeter, there are no large cities and towns. Average earnings are significantly lower than the national average. In my constituency, average earnings are 14 per cent. below the national average. Demographically, the south-west has a large retired population—most of whom are dependent on fixed incomes of one kind or another. That is the geographical and demographic background to our problem.
In 1991–92, water charges in the south-west were the third highest in England and Wales, and as a consequence of increases over the past couple of years and the projected figure for next year, it will probably have the highest water charges in the country in 1994–95. Our K factor is 11·5 per cent., plus inflation. That is a genuinely worrying prospect for consumers, particularly when one considers the large number of retired people in the area and the average level of earnings.
I received only a couple of weeks ago Ofwat's report for July 1993, "Paying for Quality: The Political Perspective." It states that, if water authorities met all their obligations, £54 could be added to bills throughout England and Wales in the five years from 1995, and a further £23 in the following five years. That would amount to about 5 per cent. above inflation each year from 1995 till the year 2000.
The Director General of Water Services stated that, in some parts of the country, average bills could rise by more than £100 during that same period, and added:
I do not believe that customers would want to see their water bills rising at this rate. Big increases in bills for low income households and for many pensioners would present real problems in affordability.
The projected figures for Devon and Cornwall show that the increases there are likely to be higher than the average quoted by the director general.
What can and should be done? I immediately dismiss the options of delaying implementation, which would be wrong, and any suggestion of deliberately reducing standards—although I would not object to cutting out frills, niceties and extravagance. The most acceptable and sensible course for the south-west would be for the Government to acknowledge that our coastline is a national asset and to accept that the cost of improvements should in part be met by the Exchequer.
At the time of privatisation, South West Water received a green dowry of £266 million, which was most welcome, and that principle can and should be extended. The population of Devon and Cornwall are certainly looking for some assistance.
As to the future of our regional air link with London Heathrow, there is no doubt that its continuation is essential to regional policy and as a central element in our regional transport infrastructure. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade acknowledged that in a letter to me in March, when he confirmed the importance of good air links to businesses in the south-west:
To this end, I wrote to John MacGregor on 25 February to pass on to him the strength of feeling held by people in Devon and Cornwall on the continued ability of Brymon Airways to operate its present services between Heathrow and Plymouth and Newquay. In my capacity as the Minister responsible for regional policy, I asked him to consider the detrimental effects that a reduction in these services could have on inward investment intentions to the Region and on the already high level of unemployment.
It is not without significance that 70 per cent. of passengers using that service are interlining. The service is crucial to attracting inward investment. Devon and Cornwall have a creditable record in that respect, but the chief executive of the Devon and Cornwall Development Bureau has several times stated publicly that, unless that service is continued, the chances of building on that excellent record will be slim.
Devon and Cornwall are competing for inward investment from the United States, Japan and the far east, not only with other United Kingdom regions but with regions across Europe. Throughout the 1980s, we had an excellent regional air link operated by Brymon and felt reasonably secure. Brymon then amalgamated with Birmingham European Airways. Unfortunately, the atmosphere changed, and we grew apprehensive.
In May 1993, British Airways—which previously had a 40 per cent. shareholding in Brymon European—took over Brymon Aviation. I have no doubt that British Airways' assurance that it will continue the west country air link is genuine and sincere, but we all know that commercial circumstances can and do change—hence my continuing anxiety.
Brymon holds 56 valuable slots at London Heathrow, and the value of that asset is estimated at £56 million—£1

million per slot. It is only natural that any commercial undertaking such as British Airways should want to maximise valuable assets.
Parallel to those changes was the publication of a Civil Aviation Authority discussion document, initiated in January, to review access by regional services to congested airports. When the CAA published its conclusions in April, the south-west was disappointed, but not surprised, that the authority stuck resolutely to its refusal to comment on the merits of protecting slots as an aspect of regional economic policy—which it said was a matter for the Government.
At the same time, on 18 January there came into effect a European regulation entitled "Common Rules for the Allocation of Slots at Community airports", article 9 of which refers specifically to regional services. I believe that the west country air link is the only regional air link that satisfies that article's four criteria for the circumstances in which a national Government could reserve certain slots at a fully co-ordinated airport for domestic scheduled services.
Since the publication of the regulations, my west country colleagues and I have held a number of meetings with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport. We have reminded them that the west country air link is the only United Kingdom regional air link that satisfies those criteria. If Ministers were to agree, they would not, I believe, be establishing a dangerous precedent but would be making a positive contribution towards safeguarding our regional air link and helping to develop the regional economy of the west country.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I want to raise two items of constituency interest and two national items that affect every constituency in the country.
Reference has already been made to Patricia Cahill and Karyn Smith having been pardoned and released from a Thai gaol and to the fact that they are now negotiating unsavoury commercial transactions to try to secure gain from an offence which they have admitted. I hope that the Prime Minister, having secured their pardon, will make his views known, perhaps privately, to them, for a specific reason. The parents of Sandra Gregory, who has just been put on trial in Thailand, live in my constituency and are naturally concerned that anything that may arise out of their actions may prejudice her trial, or any plea for mercy or pardon that may follow from that trial.
I hope that the advisers of the two girls in question, Patricia Cahill and Karyn Smith, will put it to them that they are fortunate to be free and that therefore they have a responsibility to respect the threat and the difficulties facing others in a similar situation. I should like to think that other hon. Members regard that as a message that could usefully go out from this place.

Mr. William Powell: I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The mother of Robert Lock is one of my constituents. There is absolutely no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman has said is right.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The other item of constituency interest arises out of the statement to which we have just listened. I made it clear when I asked a question that unemployment in the area


which I represent is low. We do not have assisted area status and do not directly seek it. However, the Minister for Industry referred to the procedures for objective 2 and objective 5(b) status. The Leader of the House may be aware of the fact—if he is not, I am about to make him aware—that the western part of my constituency is a candidate for 5(b) status. The important point to bear in mind is the one that I made earlier: much of that area is part of the Aberdeen travel-to-work area. That travel-to-work area may be administratively convenient, but in practical terms it is a nonsense.
The city of Aberdeen is an extremely prosperous and lively commercial centre. It is the centre of oil-related activities and many other services. The hinterland stretches as far as 70 miles away—right into the foothills of the Cairngorms. It suffers from the problems of rural depopulation and rural deprivation. That area is completely different from the rest of the Aberdeen travel-to-work area.
I have already made the point to Scottish Office Ministers—and I certainly hope to make it to Department of Trade and Industry Ministers—that the area faces serious difficulties. To the west, we have the highlands and islands, which have category I status. To the east, we have the booming economy of the city of Aberdeen. If this area does not obtain 5(b) status, it will be in danger of becoming a black hole. It will be denuded by the two compelling magnets on either side of it. These are important arguments and should be considered. Can the Leader of the House therefore give us any indication of the Government's timetable for the determination of 5(b) status and, obviously, of the European Commission's timetable?
As for the national issues that affect every constituency in the country, I refer first to the astonishing reaction to the Sheehy report on the future of policing. A point of clarification that would help me as a Scottish Member is exactly what status the report has north of the border. The police force there is in no doubt whatsoever that the Sheehy report has far-reaching implications and will be drawn on for any reforms of the police service there.
If the reforms are adopted and the Home Secretary appoints the chairmen of police authorities and their members, can the Leader of the House say whether appointments in Scotland will be by the Home Secretary or by the Secretary of State for Scotland? There does not seem to be a clear view of where the responsibility will lie. The demonstration at Wembley last week has, almost overnight and somewhat surprisingly, turned my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) into something of a folk hero among the police. I witnessed that today when I attended a meeting with my hon. Friend, at which senior police officers went out of their way to comment on the quality of his speech and to say how much they appreciated my hon. Friend's support.
Without going into the details of the report, which will continue to be debated, there is real concern that its underlying philosophy is alien to the concept of a public service police force. I draw the attention of the House to Sir Patrick Sheehy's article in the Financial Times today. I thought that it was a rather offensive article. Nevertheless, I draw attention to a sentence that appears at the end of the first paragraph. Conservative Members may not agree with me, but I find it somewhat chilling. It reads:

The federation's response to our report has been so long on emotion and so short on factual content that the shareholders (the public at large) must be confused.
That kind of language, when we are talking about a police force, is, I believe, totally and utterly inappropriate. It reflects a philosophical approach to the reform of the police service that strikes no chord at all with those who are carrying out the job.
Part of the discussion has centred on the issue of performance-related pay and short-term contracts. Police officers ask how performance-related pay will encourage crime prevention, as opposed to crime detection: is there not a danger that it may encourage prosecutions or charges being brought simply to get the statistics up? Does it not also fail to take on board many aspects of a police officer's job that cannot easily be measured in simple terms, where measurement of performance will vary from force to force and from individual to individual? The Government will have to do a lot more explaining if they are to satisfy the police.
The same applies to short-term contracts. When one joins the police, it is not a question of going into a job for life. For most police officers, it is a mission that they expect to pursue during a full-term career. To be theatened with the possibility of the discontinuance of their contract every five years, on the basis of some criteria that the police do not yet know about and in which they do not have full confidence, will not raise the morale of the police force. I urge the Government, for their own sake as well as for the sake of the country, to take these points on board before they make a decision.
My final point on this issue relates to local accountability. There is deep-seated resistance to any suggestion that there should be a nationally co-ordinated police force. The tradition of the independence of police forces and their accountability to local communities is extremely strong. There is something sinister about the idea of co-ordinating police activities through a network of Home Secretary appointees, with an agenda of their own which might be differently driven from that of local communities.
I have highlighted the points of greatest concern about that issue. I do not necessarily expect the Leader of the House to respond to them today, other than to say that he is aware of them and that the Government will consider them.
The final issue that I wish to raise is the very contentious issue of VAT on fuel. It is very serious, and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is pertinent. The House is proposing to rise for the recess without a statement from the Government about how they will compensate those pensioners and others on benefit who are very worried about the impact of the extra charge of VAT on their fuel bills.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been hinting, or hints have been released on his behalf, that the Government may be about to think again or that there is some difficulty in finding a mechanism. However, in a sense, the Chancellor has simply set other hares running by suggesting that he might be more favourably disposed to VAT on food or children's clothes in respect of which he is known to have voted in favour in the past. That will not help the Government's cause and it is not healthy for many


people in the community to be worried about one tax which has been promised and then to be told that others may be on the way.
Will the Leader of the House make it categorically clear whether there is to be a rethink about VAT on fuel, its timetable of imposition and whether the full 17·5 per cent. will be adhered to? What measures are the Government likely to produce to provide compensation if they go ahead? If the Leader of the House cannot answer that, when are the Government likely to come forward with an idea of what will be done and who will benefit?
Before coming to the House today, I took the trouble of contacting one or two relevant groups to discover what measures they are looking for. In particular, I contacted Age Concern and Neighbourhood Energy Action. They told me that 8 million people on benefit are looking to the Government for an idea of what might be done.
The proportion of income that the poorest people spend on fuel is, by definition, disproportionately high. According to Age Concern, 15·3 per cent. of the income of single pensioners with an income of under £60 a week is spent on fuel. Even those retired households with incomes of £120 a week spend 9·7 per cent. of their income on fuel. That comprises a significant part of their income and they face a 2 to 3 per cent. increase in the burden on their income through the imposition of VAT on fuel.
The Government have said, "Don't worry. We are going to bring in mechanisms that will compensate you all." However, the two groups to which I have referred can see no way in which the Government can deliver that. The problem is logical to me. I am a Scottish Member and I represent a constituency in the north of Scotland. By definition, fuel bills for my constituents are higher on average than they are for people who live in the south-west of England. In winter, days are shorter and temperatures are lower. Therefore, my constituents' bills are disproportionately higher.
In addition, and this point applies throughout the country—although the colder the area, the more severe the problem—people who are more housebound and less mobile consume more heat. It is difficult to see how any measure can discriminate or identify those people in a flexible way.
The argument that putting VAT on fuel is a matter of encouraging energy efficiency is acceptable only if the Government come up with a comprehensive package to help people achieve more energy efficient housing. It is suggested that the Government might reassess the introduction of the hard-to-heat housing grants which used to operate. It would be helpful if the Government were prepared to provide greater home insulation grants and access to energy audits to enable people to identify the seriousness of their situation. The Government should recognise that they are unlikely to allay the cost of that to all the 8 million people on the lowest incomes.
I should be grateful if the Leader of the House could give us some idea about how that problem will be approached. There is a great deal of concern and worry and we can make any amount of political capital out of this issue. Indeed, the Leader of the House will be aware that we are making a great deal of political capital out of the issue in a particular community. However, there is a serious point, because it affects every constituency to a

greater or lesser degree. The people who are directly affected are genuinely and desperately anxious to know how they are going to make ends meet. They know that they will have to face bigger bills, but they do not know yet what measures are likely to be introduced to alleviate those bills or how they will be applied.
The agencies that know about these things do not believe that the Government can fulfil their own objectives of protecting everyone against the impact of the tax on fuel. If the Government are beginning to recognise that and are now prepared to modify their position, the sooner they say so, the better. If that means that they will have to bring in another tax in another area which is just as unpopular, I suppose that the Government will have to say that at the same time.

Mr. John Ward: Before the House adjourns for the summer, I believe that we should take a little time to consider the state of nuclear power stations in central and eastern Europe. While I hope to show that a certain amount of work has already been carried out to make the more dangerous plants safe, there is insufficient awareness of the continuing danger from those nuclear power plants.
I should like to begin by complimenting Mr. Bassinet, a former Member of the French Parliament, who produced a report for the Council of Europe which was printed earlier this year. His report has provided much of the information for my speech today. At least Mr. Bassinet's report has increased the awareness of the dangers and problems of the nuclear power plants to which I have referred among the 40 nations that are members of the Council of Europe or special guests at its meetings.
The Soviet-designed nuclear power plants can be divided into two categories: RBMK graphite-moderated reactors of the Chernobyl type and VVER pressurised water reactors. At present, there are 57 reactors, including 15 of the graphite-moderated type, scattered in different countries and 15 reactors of the pressurised water type are still under construction.
The RBMK reactors do not have' a containment structure. Their design is old fashioned and has no equivalent in the west. Since the Chernobyl disaster, those reactors have been giving increasing cause for concern and it is recommended by many that they should be shut down within a reasonable time.
The VVER reactors can be broken down into three groups. The oldest, first-generation reactors have the most serious design faults with no containment structure, very little core cooling capacity, and, in the event of failure, they are very badly instrumented.
The second group of VVER reactors is rather better than the earlier models, but it still has many shortcomings. The third group of reactors, which are of recent design, come closest to matching western standards and do have containment structures. However, they suffer from inadequate supervision and remain a source of concern.
With all their inadequacies, many of those nuclear power plants were under strict surveillance and protection by, of all people, the KGB and there was little risk of insecurity as a result of terrorist attack. However, that appears no longer to be the case and some are inadequately protected from any form of forced entry.
Plants in the former Soviet socialist republics have a shortage of specialist personnel, partly through ill feeling against the Russian technicians and partly because some of them have been persuaded to move elsewhere by offers of much higher salaries and better working conditions.
As they have so many other problems, both economic and social, people living near the plants to which I have referred seem almost indifferent to the dangers on their doorstep, even though some of the plants are located close to cities such as St. Petersburg and Kiev. It is reported that plants in Hungary and Bulgaria are better supervised, but the inherent lack of safety in their design still gives cause for concern.
On 26 April, the Evening Standard published an excellent article that gave full details of sources of danger from power stations and other nuclear installations. If colleagues wish to seek further information on this subject, I recommend that they read that article.
Most people's immediate reaction is that we should shut down a large number of the reactors operating in eastern Europe. That is hardly a realistic option, given that 50 per cent. of power generation in some of those countries comes from nuclear power.
Given that those plants might have to be operated for some years, I can envisage several problems: first, the lack of containment against radiation leaks or accidents; secondly, inadequate instrumentation and control and brittleness in the reactor vessels; thirdly, the quality of some of the personnel now operating many of the plants; fourthly, pressure on operators to produce the maximum possible amount of electricity, which, in the case of Chernobyl, could lead to short cuts resulting in an accident; and, fifthly and by far the most important, the danger to life not just within the area of the power stations concerned but in Europe generally and possibly beyond, depending on weather conditions, if there were a repeat of the Chernobyl incident.
What is being done and what more can be done? The G7, the European Council and the international atomic energy conference on nuclear safety in 1991 accepted that each country must be responsible for regulating the safety of its own nuclear installations. Those are fine words, but, given the record of Chernobyl and economic conditions in the Soviet bloc, is that enough? At the G7 summit in March last year, steps were taken to set up an international programme to improve nuclear safety and agree new regulations to ensure the safe operation of as many plants as possible.
The United Kingdom Government are playing a significant part in addressing those issues. Apart from their financial contribution, they have made technical help and advice available through the nuclear installations inspectorate and our nuclear industry. Many international organisations are also allocating resources to the problem, but continued progress depends on the will and the finance being available in the countries concerned. I question whether either is available in sufficient quantities at present.
It has been said that it would be prohibitively expensive to bring the 60 or so reactors up to western safety standards and that neither national nor international funds would be available for such a step. We have to set against that the cost to all of us if there were another Chernobyl or an even worse accident. Time is not on the side of the operators of the nuclear plants to which I have referred. Pressure must be maintained to ensure that the

problem is solved as speedily as possible, even if international finance has to be diverted from other worthwhile causes.
I accept that we cannot rush into other countries and start organising their work or, indeed, carrying it out for them, but many international authorities have accepted that the oldest reactors represent a very high risk to the international community and that their continued operation would certainly not be accepted in any western country. As Lord Marshall of Goring pointed out in an interview in September, the Russians know their own systems best, and we should support them by supplying them with what they want, particularly the technology which they cannot afford because they have no hard currency. That must be done in close co-operation with the operators, because, if we supplied technology or equipment that they did not want, they would simply not use it. It is desperately important that the international community should focus on that dangerous matter.
I have concentrated on the problems associated with nuclear power plants, and that is where most of our efforts need to be concentrated, but we cannot ignore the many experimental and small reactors in the former Soviet Union which, although small, are equally dangerous. For instance, the former chief nuclear safety inspector for Russia has said that there are 50 such nuclear reactors in Moscow alone, together with a waste dump which is in a highly dangerous condition. I have no time to go into the detail, but that illustrates once again the need for urgent co-ordinated international action and serious consideration of how funds can be provided to raise the safety threshold of all nuclear installations in the former Soviet bloc.
It goes without saying that any funds that are made available from the west must be spent in such a way that they can be supervised by the west to ensure that they are used for the purpose for which they are intended, which is to improve safety for the whole of the former Soviet Union and the surrounding countries.
As I see it, there are two main ways of dealing with the problems that I have illustrated—first, the efficient co-ordination of international efforts, with access to the top levels in the countries concerned, and, secondly, finance which will be needed from outside the former Soviet bloc. One estimate is that the current flow of funds would need to be increased tenfold if we are to bring all nuclear plants in eastern and central Europe up to international standards. It will take a skilful combination of the technical options and what is politically possible to achieve the safety levels that we must insist on, even if, in some cases, it leads to the shutting down of the most dangerous reactors and their replacement by other forms of power generation.
An encouraging move in that direction has been made by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, by setting up within the bank a multilateral nuclear safety fund which would be available to achieve the objectives that I have set out today. But that fund will need resources that are specifically earmarked for nuclear safety and sufficient supervision to ensure that the funds are used for their intended purpose. We need to make it clear that large sums of money are involved.
At the G7 meeting in Munich, to which I have already referred, it was suggested that $20 billion would be needed to cover the power stations in Russia and Ukraine, and approximately the same amount for eastern and central


Europe and the other former Soviet republics. That is a long-term commitment, but, again, it has been estimated that $200 million needs to be spent on all first generation reactors and somewhat smaller sums spent on second and third generation reactors. We are talking vast sums, particularly when compared with the other needs of those countries. However, I believe that when hon. Members consider the figures that I have put to the House today and the potential danger to the whole of mankind, they will agree that the priority must be to establish safety in the nuclear power industry.
In summary, we need a careful analysis of all the problems, speedy discussions with the Governments of the relevant countries about the problems and proposed solutions, a respected international co-ordinating body —possibly the International Atomic Energy Agency—to oversee standards, and an international effort to provide the necessary funds and ensure that they are spent to achieve the standard of safety which we are entitled to expect.
I believe that there is much international acceptance of the problems, and there have been many calls at national and international level for progress. What we need now is action. Colleagues have only to read the national press to learn of one incident after another in which rules on nuclear safety have been broken either for experimental purposes or in an attempt to boost electricity production. I remind the House that, seven years after the Chernobyl incident, areas of the United Kingdom are still contaminated by radioactive fallout. We cannot let complacency or concentration on other matters of national and international importance lead us to ignore that huge danger to mankind. We are sitting on a powder keg of outdated nuclear installations.
The problems that I have described are just some of the challenges which the west has to face following the disintegration of the communist bloc, but those problems are potentially the most important and certainly the most dangerous that we have to deal with.

Mr. Tom Cox: I wish to speak about the present situation in Cyprus. Nineteen years ago, the island of Cyprus was brutually invaded by the Turkish army. That army is still in Cyprus and the island is still divided. The United Kingdom is one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus, and Cyprus is a member of the British Commonwealth.
Over the years, hon. Members have campaigned for an honourable settlement in Cyprus. We have always called for the rights of Greek and Turkish Cypriots to be fully honoured and respected in any settlement. We have always supported United Nations resolutions on Cyprus and we have supported the talks between the leaders of both communities. However, it is now 1993 and there has been no progress whatsoever in those talks over the years.
When one asks why there has been no progress, the answer is not hard to find. It is due, without doubt, to the attitude of Mr. Rauf Denktas, the self-styled leader of the Republic of Northern Cyprus. He is the man who, year after year, has presented every obstacle to progress in the talks that have taken place. Indeed, he is the man whom the Secretary-General of the United Nations indicted as

the person whose action, once again, caused the recent breakdown of the UN-sponsored talks in New York on Cyprus.
It is interesting to read the speech of Mr. Denktas, given in Ankara on 10 June, when he criticised the talks that were held under the auspices of the United Nations. Yet it was agreed by the three guarantor powers—the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey—for the island of Cyprus and the representatives of the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus that those talks should be held under the auspices of the United Nations. It was hoped that progress would be made towards a settlement. What is the attitude of the British Government to yet another collapse of those talks, given that the Government are directly involved in them? In particular, what is Britain's attitude to Mr. Denktas? How much longer must we put up with his tantrums? There have been many since the invasion in 1974.
It would be interesting to discover exactly when the British Government propose to take an active role in the tragedy of Cyprus. It is my belief, and that of many hon. Members, including many Conservatives, that the Government have never taken an active role.
Many hon. Members have questioned the trade between northern Cyprus and this country and the kind of products involved. I firmly believe that many of the goods that now find their way into the United Kingdom are produced on land stolen from Greek Cypriots. Hon. Members have tried repeatedly to obtain information about that, but without success. Recent events concerning an individual who has fled to Cyprus to avoid British justice may cause the Government to consider more closely exactly where goods from northern Cyprus are produced and on whose land. Many would welcome that.
Turkish nationals who come to this country now may have dual nationality because they have, at one time, lived in northern Cyprus. Many travel from mainland Turkey to the occupied area of northern Cyprus. They are then given documents by the northern Cypriot Administration which allow them to travel to this country. They gain entry to the United Kingdom when they have no right to do so. They are not citizens of northern Cyprus, but citizens of Turkey. The Government must address that problem because there is ample evidence of abuse taking place.
For many years, Cyprus has sought to be involved in the European Community and it is now actively seeking membership of it. The per capita income of Cyprus is already greater than that of some of the Community member states and its economic growth has been much faster than that enjoyed by other member states. It would be interesting to discover whether the British Government support the entry of Cyprus into the Community, because that could offer hope to the people of Cyprus, be they Greek or Turkish.
Another issue which has involved a great deal of recent discussion and which many hon. Members do not want to see drift relates to the future of Famagusta and Varosha, because a decision on them would benefit both the communities on the island. There has been talk of the possibility that Famagusta could be open once again. It is important to remember that it was one of the most popular areas on the island; it could be again.
I accept that the Leader of the House is not in a position to reply specifically to the points I have raised, but, after previous debates, I am aware that, to his credit, he has always ensured that the points that I or other hon.
Members have raised have been conveyed to the appropriate Ministers. It would, therefore, be interesting to discover the Government's view on the possible reopening of Famagusta, because that would benefit the people of Cyprus.
In October, the Heads of State of the Commonwealth countries will meet in Cyprus. The United Kingdom will be represented by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I have written to inquire whether it is their intention to ensure that the subject of Cyprus is discussed at that conference, especially given that that conference will be held in Cyprus. I shall be interested to know the answer.
It is 19 years since Cyprus was invaded. Greek Cypriots, whether they live in Cyprus or in the United Kingdom, have had enough. They have witnessed the division of their country, which is now partly occupied by a foreign army. They believe that the talks that have gone on for the past 19 years have achieved nothing. They look to the British Government, as one of the guarantor powers, to set in motion discussions that will lead to a meaningful settlement.
Young Greek Cypriots, whether they live in Cyprus or in the United Kingdom, as many do, are fed up with the lack of any meaningful progress in the past 19 years. I hope that that point, in particular, is conveyed to the Foreign Secretary. The time for excuses has now come to an end. The aim of those young people is shared by many hon. Members, irrespective of party, who have campaigned for the rights of Greek and Turkish Cypriots to be upheld in any settlement.
The time has come for meaningful action by the British Government. Any such action will be carefully scrutinised in the coming months. I hope that the Government appreciate that. I also hope that they will respond to the concerns I have expressed, which could have equally been expressed by Conservative Members, in a debate such as this.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am glad that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is still here. I was rather amused to hear him say that his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) had been hailed as a folk hero by the police. Some of us have long memories: the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was a junior Minister in the pre-1979 Labour Government, when police numbers were dropping drastically because they were dissatisfied with their pay and conditions. It took the Conservative Government, elected in May 1979, to implement the Edmund-Davies report and to do something about police pay and conditions.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gordon was not present at business questions on Thursday, when he would have heard several of my hon. Friends ask the Leader of the House, about the Sheehy report. We know perfectly well that nothing will be done to implement it until it has been fully discussed in the House so that we can make the points that have been made to us by police officers. It is better to wait until we have had a full debate to see what the Government intend before indulging in any more conjecture.
I always regard these debates as useful. I apologise in advance for being repetitious. My right hon. Friend knows

well that, over the years, I have tried desperately hard to get a new community hospital in south Trafford. I shall continue to raise the matter in these debates until we have one. A community hospital in south Trafford is long overdue. If my right hon. Friend checks, he will find that since 1980 Trafford health authority has been the only district in the north-west not to have been given a large capital project.
When I last raised the matter in a debate on 18 May, I mentioned the disciples of gloom who make up the membership of the Broadheath Labour party in my constituency and who were pessimistic about our ever achieving a new community hospital. Because I chided them, they have had a go at me—perfectly fairly. A veteran party member and inveterate newspaper columnist attacked me. That, too, was perfectly fair, except that he misquoted me—although that is not unusual.
In my speech on 18 May I quoted a large chunk from a report by Trafford health authority, but my friend in the Broadheath Labour party attributed the words to me. He was not trying to be fair; he was trying to score cheap political points. That does not come well from a man who has twice stood in the ward and been soundly rejected by the electors of Broadheath.
It is sad that we cannot put up a united front on this issue, putting politics to one side and working as one to try to acheive something that would be a great asset to our area. The new community hospital would consist of 24 beds and 24 day places for the elderly mentally infirm. It would have 48 beds and 30 day places for the elderly and two 25-place mental illness day units. It would also have four out-patient clinic suites, two radiodiagnostic rooms, 10 investigation beds and one small pathology laboratory.
The community hospital, when we get it, will fill a desperate need in the constituency. We are all, regardless of party, well aware of the problems of an aging population. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to warn our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that I am still on the warpath and will continue to be so until the hospital becomes a reality.
I have also raised my second issue before—I do not apologise for that. It concerns the worries expressed by housing associations because they are now the main providers of new rented housing. More help in this sector would be most welcome.
I should like to quote from a pamphlet just issued by the National Federation of Housing Associations, called "The case for housing: build homes and create jobs". It states:
The problems new tenants have paying their rents can be seen from the increased dependency on housing benefit: more than 70 per cent. are eligible for full or partial benefit. The NFHA fears that Government proposals to reduce housing association grant to 55 per cent. would increase this figure to 89 per cent. and cause great hardship to many tenants who would be pushed deeper into the poverty trap. Ministers should take heed of the House of Commons Environment Committee which recommended that 'the Government consider very carefully the consequences of allowing rates of HAG to fall below 67 per cent"'.
The construction industry has clearly suffered badly during the recession. It is estimated that about 500,000 construction workers have lost their jobs in the past three years. If it is true—the figure has been bandied about a great deal—that each unemployed worker costs the Government £9,000 a year in increased benefit payments


and lost income tax and national insurance contributions, any cut in the building programme would only make matters worse.
We desperately need more affordable homes; by building more, we reduce the number of unemployed and we rehouse people in urgent need, such as the homeless, young single people, people leaving institutions for care in the community, and the growing number of elderly people who need specialist housing.
To return to a problem that I have raised before, the system is a disincentive to thrift. Time and again I come across cases of people who have made no attempt to save. Then there are others who have scrimped and saved all their lives, only to find that their thrift is being penalised. Under our rules people with capital of between £3,000 and £16,000 find that interest is assumed at the rate of £1 a week for every £250 of capital. I only wish that someone would give me that rate of interest on my savings. It is, frankly, a ridiculous disincentive to save and it should be urgently re-examined.
My last issue is a local one. Earlier this year, Metrolink opened in our area. It is a great asset, giving us a marvellous system of transport from Bury in the north to Altrincham in the south. The system is widely used and it offers a convenient way of getting into Manchester. It also takes cars off the road, which is enormously helpful.
There are, however, plans to expand the system to the south Manchester and airport lines. The expansion is proposed by the Greater Manchester light rapid transport system. The new line, to be called the Olympic link, will connect Chorlton-cum-Hardy to Wythenshawe and, ultimately, Manchester airport. I question the suggested route that the line will take across the Mersey river valley. It is recognised that the plan seeks to use road corridors that have already been proposed in the urban development plans of Greater Manchester, Manchester and Trafford —that appears at first sight a logical step for the tram route.
What concerns me is the fact that in Trafford metropolitan borough council's urban development programme the Mersey valley is identified as an area of natural beauty and a recreational resource; a potential financial resource in the form of mining deposits; and the location for an eventual extension of Hardy lane as part of an orbital route into the city of Manchester. Permission for the proposed tram route will damage all three components of the UDP.
The current proposed route will also cut through a corner of Pimmcroft housing estate, an estate of homes built about five years ago. The plans would mean the demolition of eight houses that people have bought only recently. Originally the land was safeguarded for the western parkway road scheme, but it was abandoned some years ago. Its reservation is still largely intact and now forms the path of the proposed Metrolink line.
The developers of the estate will have bought the land for development with no idea of what the future held and will then have developed and sold the land in good faith. There are also problems to do with environmental damage. A couple of weeks ago, I met a group of local residents and I am due to meet the director-general of Greater Manchester passenger transport executive on Friday.
Local residents worry that their homes could be blighted. The housing market is difficult enough as it is without making it worse. Someone who suddenly finds that he has to move to another part of the country for work reasons and then discovers that his home is blighted is in a serious position. The local residents are asking for a public inquiry on the Metrolink extension and its viability. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could check the procedure and let me know.
Before the House rises for the summer recess, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give me good news on the local community hospital, good news for housing associations and helpful information for residents of the Pimmcroft housing estate in my constituency.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), because this is one of the rare occasions on which I substantially agree with him. I am sure that he will agree that there are great possibilities for Greater Manchester in an extended Metrolink network but that, when the route leaves the old railway lines, it will cause problems.
I hope that Greater Manchester can negotiate with individual landowners to find a route that causes no disturbance. If not, as I understand it, any proposal for an extension of the line will have to go to a public inquiry. The Transport and Works Act 1992 removed the need for individual schemes to be promoted by private Bills, and gave local bodies the power to make representations to the Secretary of State, and gave the Secretary of State power then to arrange a public inquiry.
I also agree with the hon. Member's concern about grant levels for housing associations. I was a member of the Select Committee on the Environment which produced a good report, from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. I hope that the Government will soon issue a favourable response. The report emphasised that we are not building the 80,000 houses a year we need to build. By the turn of the century, 500,000 families who should be housed will not be housed because of the shortfall. As the hon. Gentleman said, about 500,000 building workers are out of work, so it is criminal that we are not building for the future.
I was not quite so happy with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Sheehy report. He suggested that we could wait for a debate, but I believe that the Government should make it clear that they will shred or bin the report, and do so quickly, because it is already doing great damage to police morale. Until the Government state their views clearly, the issue will continue to fester within the police force.
What would be the attitude of the Leader of the House if he were a young constable, wondering whether to begin studying for his sergeant's exams? A constable takes perhaps 12 months to pass the tests, after which he has the opportunity to act as a sergeant for another 12 months. Now, he will be offered a new contract; instead of the security that he has now, he would have to ask himself whether he should risk accepting a short-term contract as proposed by Sheehy.
As long as such uncertainty rests in the back of a police officer's mind, he will wonder whether he should change jobs. That is not the way to ensure that crime is tackled.
The Government should be making it clear to the police force that they do not intend to put it through a continuous series of changes but want the force to be able to get on with the job.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) spoke of compensation to the poor when value added tax is levied on domestic fuel. We need a speedy solution to the problem; it could be a reason for the House to sit this week or to return early from the summer recess.
Clearly, part of the compensation can be granted through the benefits system, but it will be necessary for the Government to provide extra compensation to take into account the fact that some people live in properties that are hard to heat, or in cold parts of the country. The most logical solution is to provide insulation schemes for their dwellings, but such schemes will have to be implemented quickly in time for the first heating bills under the new system.
I stayed for this debate to express the disgust of people in the Manchester travel-to-work area about the removal of its intermediate area status. My right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) expressed considerable concern.
The Minister for Industry said glibly that unemployment in Manchester was not too bad. I remind him that one in 10 are still unemployed, but the much more serious figure for Manchester is that of the long-term unemployed. It is especially worrying for the people of Manchester that the Government seem to have washed their hands of the area and are no longer prepared to give any assistance to help it tackle the problem.
What effect will the loss of status have on Manchester's Olympic bid? As I understood it, some of the help for the bid was to come from grants which would be available as a result of the area's present status. If it loses that status, as the Government have decided it will, it will be that much harder for the area to get grants, and especially the passport to European Community money.
The Minister argued that there was not necessarily a link between EC grant status and intermediate status. It will be extremely difficult, however, to go cap in hand to the EC and ask whether an area can qualify for EC money when it does not qualify for assistance from our own Government. I should also be grateful for the Leader of the House's comments on the vast areas of east Manchester and the substantial part of Tameside which comprise derelict land. I should have thought that it was important to continue to assist in clearing those areas.
Apparently, the Government's thinking is that they will continue to give assistance to the Trafford Park area but not the rest of the Manchester travel-to-work area. I accept that, 30 years ago, 30,000 people worked at places such as Metro's in the centre of Trafford Park, which was the natural focus for people in the Manchester travel-to-work area. There were various works buses and a better rail network, and many people established car sharing systems to get to work.
With the destruction of Metrovicks and Trafford Park, the network for travelling into the area disappeared. Unless the Government can come up with new assistance for the area to make it easy for people to travel to Trafford Park—perhaps an extension of the metro system—it would be more logical to provide jobs near where people live than perpetuate a system under which people travel to Trafford Park.
I am very disappointed by the decision to remove the area's status, and I am sure that many people in the travel-to-work area will feel the same. We believe that the decision is simply political gerrymandering and that there is no logic in the Government's decision to remove intermediate status from the Manchester travel-to-work area.
Another issue that directly affects my constituents is the proposed closure of the Lancashire Hill post office. Many hon. Members have had a considerable number of letters from constituents who are worried about the long-term future of post offices after the Government's decision to encourage people to have benefits paid other than through post offices. It is ironic that the Government are encouraging people to have benefits paid through the banks, because banks have closed in Brinnington and in Haughton Green in my constituency, making it difficult for anyone foolish enough to ask for their money to be paid in that way rather than through the post office.
In advance of the general decline of post offices, which the Government are encouraging, it is proposed to close the Lancashire Hill post office in my constituency. It is in the centre of a council estate which was built in the 1960s. The estate consists of deck access flats and, although some flats are very attractive inside, some of the communal areas are appalling. The local authority, with much pressing from councillors and myself, suggested a regeneration scheme to the Government. The Government have given permission for the £12 million or so to be borrowed.
The authority is now halfway through the development scheme, but, because of the age of the postmaster, it has been proposed to close the post office. It would be crazy to close it, and I plead with the Government to use what influence they have with the Post Office. Although takings in the shop may be down because one half or one third of the estate is empty at present, within three years £12 million will have been spent on it, and the post office deserves to be kept open.

Mr. Newton: I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be able to get sufficient information to give him a detailed reply. I take it that he is referring to a sub-post office, not a Crown post office?

Mr. Bennett: I am referring to a sub-post office.
The usual argument by the Post Office is that there are other post offices relatively nearby. There is a Crown post office down the hill and another sub-post office some distance up the hill, but the Crown office, especially, does not offer the same service to pensioners as the one in the middle of the estate. I realise that it may be difficult, but I make a plea to the Government to assist me in persuading the Post Office to keep the existing post office open.
I wish to make two quick points before I end. First, I was in my constituency campaigning with Greenpeace recently to persuade people to boycott Norwegian goods. I hope that the Government will deliver a strong message to the Norwegian Government that we do not want them to begin whaling once more and that, if Norway wants to get into the EC, it must stop the practice. If only a small number of my constituents boycotted Norwegian products, the economic effect would outweigh the benefit that that country receives from whaling.
Secondly, the Norwegians could say that our environmeal record is not especially good, so will the


Leader of the House explain why it is not possible for a Defence Minister to come to the House and make a statement about Britain's intentions for nuclear testing?
I understand that it is a little embarrassing for the Government that the Americans have said that they do not want any more tests and that we have been saying, until recently, that they are essential for the security of the country, but the House deserves clear statements from the Government. Do they accept that nuclear tests are no longer necessary? If we are not to have any tests, do the Government have any intention of developing the tactical air-to-surface missiles or a new free-fall nuclear bomb system?
Instead of trying to slip such information out during the recess, it would have been far better if the Government had had the courage to say that nuclear proliferation is one of the most appalling problems in the world. Britain ought to be prepared to give a lead and hope that everyone else will give up testing. We ought to say that we are not prepared to develop any new systems, and thereby give some impetus to the non-nuclear proliferation treaty, so that we can make the world a safer place.
It is a long recess, and the topics that I have briefly mentioned are ones for which the Government could find more time. I understand that we return in October, and that there are another couple of weeks' holiday before the Queen's Speech. There is surely time to settle the question of Sheehy and tell people what will happen about proposed compensation for VAT, and there is certainly time for the Government to find an opportunity to announce that they are reversing their decision to take intermediate status from Greater Manchester.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the summer recess, there are three points that I wish to raise. The first will be of concern and interest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, because it is to do with Essex county council.
He will know that, in May, the Conservatives lost control of that county council. The election resulted in 32 Conservative councillors, 33 Labour councillors and 32 Liberal councillors. For some while, a great deal of posturing went on about who was to control the council. Hey presto, the decision was made that Labour would jump into bed with the Liberals. I do not know whether there are arrangements to impeach county councillors, but, if there are not, perhaps the House would wish to consider that issue at another stage, because in the past three months the two socialist parties have reneged on their policies in an absolutely disgraceful fashion.
Before the county council elections, those parties made all sorts of promises, on which I am reliably informed they have gone back in a disgraceful way. We should continue to remind them of how they have let down the good people of Essex. They said that they were going to spend more money on education and deliver nursery education. At the county council meeting in the past week, it was discovered that there has been underspend of £4 million. A Conservative county councillor proposed that the money be spent on primary education, and that suggestion was voted down by the two socialist parties.
Also during the county council election campaign, it was said that something was to be done about Pitsea tip in my constituency, where there had been continual protest about the movements of dumping. The socialists said that it was a disgrace, and held a public meeting during the run-up to the May election. When it came up in committee, nothing was done.
Finally, during the county council elections, the socialists castigated the Conservative-controlled county council about the meals on wheels and social service policy generally. When it came up at a committee meeting two weeks ago, the Conservatives wanted to do more, but the two socialist parties voted them down and wanted to do less. We shall never let them forget their treachery and the way that they have let down the people of Essex.
Moving on to my second point, on 23 February I asked leave to introduce a Bill to stop sex selection. That grubby practice goes on in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). It is basically a racket by which people come along, pay money and get roughly a 55 per cent. chance of correctly selecting the sex of their child.
I should have thought that the House would consider that such a grubby practice should be outlawed. Instead, my Bill was opposed, and it was opposed by feminists. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, heard of anything so crazy as feminists opposing a Bill to outlaw sex selection, a practice which anyone with common sense realises works against women?
I was told during the debate that I should not have the arrogance to introduce such a Bill, that I should wait until the report of the committee overseeing those matters. Since then, that committee has reported, and it has recommended that sex selection should not be allowed in the country. Also, members of the British Medical Association are in favour of stopping sex selection.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I and many other hon. Members are concerned about the cheapness of life, and that we cannot think of anything more degrading than choosing the sex of one's child. We want action from the Government, and we will not be fobbed off.
My final point concerns Pitsea post office—a serious matter that affects many of my constituents. I am outraged by the lack of courtesy of Post Office Counters Ltd. Up until now, it has not even had the good grace to telephone or write to me asking for my opinion about the threatened transfer of Pitsea post office.
Rumours started in my constituency on 19 June that Pitsea post office would be closing, that Post Office Counters Ltd. had done a deal with the Tesco superstore, and that the post office would be moved there. For 70 per cent. of the people who use the Pitsea Crown post office, that move would be wonderful, because the store would be open longer hours and that would be much more convenient. But I am concerned not about the people with cars, the young and middle-aged, but about the senior citizens who will have great difficulty in getting to the Tesco superstore in Pitsea.
I am concerned about the rumour of a fait accompli. Tesco has gone out to public consultation until 6 August, but I am told that it is a cosmetic exercise. Work has been done on building the new post office in the Tesco superstore. Counters are being installed and staff are being told that they will have jobs. It is a disgrace. More than


2,000 of my constituents have signed a petition to oppose the transfer, and many of them—elderly and disabled people—are outraged.

Mr. John Marshall: May I give some hope to the people of Pitsea? Post Office Counters Ltd. used a similar ploy in Cricklewood, by means of which it managed to unite the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and myself. It decided that the union was so strange it should withdraw the proposal, and it may do so in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Amess: I am heartened by my hon. Friend's encouragement. Only this morning, as I opened Basildon playlink, one of the leaders of the protest group told me that training arrangements are appalling. Apparently, the training course used to last five weeks and the service was absolutely excellent, but now the proposal is for two seven-minute tests and only three week's training.
Hon. Members take their duties very seriously. I deprecate the lack of courtesy that seems to have crept in since the 1992 general election, because some hon. Members now visit other hon. Members' constituencies without dropping a note to inform them. That certainly is not the case with one Opposition Member, but I do not need the help of a Back-Bench Opposition Member who, I read from press cuttings, is holding a public meeting in my constituency. I am perfectly able to represent Basildon, as the chairman of Post Office Counters Ltd. and Tesco will find out next week.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May I deal, first, with the Minister's shocking excuse that the changes in assisted area status were presented so late in the parliamentary year because the Government had to consult an EC Commissioner about them? Are we so subservient to EC Commissioners that we cannot ask them to see our proposed changes at a date that suits the Government and that, if a highly paid bureaucrat on £130,000 a year plus expenses deems that he has not time to see a representative of the British Government, an order cannot be laid?
Parliament is entitled to 40 days in which to pray against the Assisted Areas Order 1993 during which the House could debate for an hour and a half the unfairness of removing Bradford's assisted area status, but if the House of Lords sits, even as the final court of appeal, our praying days are lost. If the House of Lords considers the Rees-Mogg case during the recess, we might lose as many as half of our praying days.
I hope that the Government will allocate sufficient time for debate. The number of hon. Members rising to put a question during this afternoon's statement showed widespread concern and deep suspicion of gerrymandering, on the basis not of need but of political convenience for the Government.
Bradford's removal from the list of assisted areas cannot be justified. There are 552 vacancies for 25,000 unemployed people in Bradford. Unemployment is almost 11 per cent. I mention that because of Bradford's heavy emphasis on manufacturing, particularly textiles and engineering, and because as a result of difficulties associated with the multi-fibre arrangement jobs are constantly being eroded.
Bradford has lost urban aid. The loss of section 11 grant from the Home Office particularly affects Bradford, which has a comparatively large ethnic minority population. Section 11 money was an important component of our assistance. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that, if a prayer is tabled—rest assured that it will be—serious consideration will be given to providing more than one and a half hours to debate the issue after the recess.
I tabled an amendment to the Adjournment motion to allow an extra two days to debate changes in assisted area status. A debate would have been very valuable, and I hope that, if I decide to divide the House, hon. Members will join me in the Lobby.
We need time to debate the "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", paragraph 107 of which says:
Ministers must resign any directorships they hold when they give up office. This applies whether the directorship is in a public or a private company and whether it carries remuneration or is honorary. The only exception to this rule is that directorships in private companies established in connection with private family estates may be retained subject to the condition that, if at any time the Minister feels that conflict is likely to arise between this private interest and public duty, the Minister should even in those cases resign the directorship.
That is guidance from the Prime Minister. I believe that there should not be double standards between guidance from the Prime Minister to Ministers and legislation which the Government propose for the ordinary man or woman in the street. Tight rules apply to, for example, income support, social fund grants and loans. We should devote some time to debating those issues before the House rises. People who leave their employment without just cause can have their unemployment benefit cut by almost 20 per cent. for up to 26 weeks. The Bradford employment office —or unemployment office—invariably automatically chooses 26 weeks rather than one, two or three weeks, because the period for which it can deduct is up to 26 weeks and not a mandatory 26 weeks. Tight rules apply to ordinary people who are struggling to make ends meet week in, week out.
When I asked about four Ministers who were in breach of paragraph 107 of the "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", the Leader of the House told me that I was muck-raking—that I could not ask about Ministers, but Ministers could make rules to cut unemployment benefit for people who, for example, left their employment because of a dispute with their employer.
I take the view, and it should be on the record, that those rules should be kept. When the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), as director of a company—he receives no remuneration—supplies the services of two members of his family as actresses, that is not part of the family estate. It is better if a Minister resigns the directorship. The Select Committee on Members' Interests says to all hon. Members that, if an hon. Member is in any doubt, he should declare a financial interest. On balance, it is better if Ministers resign.
I accept that that example could be regarded as a marginal case, but, on the other hand, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who is also a Minister, is a director, not of one company but of several. I think that he is in breach of the rules. For example, he is a director of the Locana Corporation (London) Ltd., D'Arcy Stand Ltd., Tadworth Court Trust Ltd., Locana Nominees Ltd, General Securities Register Ltd. and Anacol Holdings Ltd.
Anacol Holdings Ltd. is a company that deals in securities. It may well be that the hon. Member has not received any remuneration, but he received a loan during 1992 of £75,000 by the Locana Corporation (London) Ltd., a subsidiary to TSK Yeo. The loan was repaid, but it has a value. The rules for Ministers—in paragraph 107 —are laid down to avoid any conflict when Ministers make decisions. It seems quite qrong that Ministers can avoid or bend the rules, but if ordinary people try to bend the rules that the Government produce, a different set of standards is imposed.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: My hon. Friend referred to double standards for Ministers. Did he notice that when the right hon. Members for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and for Watford (Mr. Garel Jones) and others declined to stay in the Government they were entitled to generous severance payments despite the fact that they departed from the Government voluntarily, so we are told? When other people in the work force decide to give up their jobs, or are made redundant, they are not always entitled to the generous severance payments that are exclusively available to members of the Government.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point as it reinforces the question of double standards.
I shall now deal with Viscount Cranborne, who is also a member of the Government. He is a director of an organisation—a company limited by guarantee—called Stalbury Trustees. Its aims have nothing to do with private family estates. Its principal activity is the promotion of Conservative principles for the benefit of the Conservative cause or party.
Viscount Cranborne may regard the Conservative party as his private property, but not many others in the party do. It is not his family estate. It really should not be a matter for a Conservative Minister to be involved in a company that has investments valued in 1991 at just under £1 million, the interest of which goes towards the Conservative party. It seems to me that such a company could bring a Minister into conflict with some activities that he would undertake as a Minister.
The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) was a director of a company that provided secretarial and research services. He received remuneration. In 1992, when the turnover was £29,390, the profit on ordinary activities before taxation was £2,190. As the only two directors are the right hon. Member for Conwy and his wife, I assume that the surplus over activities, the profit before taxation, was distributed to the directors. It certainly was in 1991 because the dividend payable is listed as £4,500, and there was a distribution. In the provision of the services there, it is quite possible that, as a Minister, such company activity could come into conflict with his duty as a Minister.
I shall now deal with the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). It is arguable that his extensive property interests could be counted as part of the family estates. The family estates include: Ince castle, Saltash; the ground floor flats, stable block; flats 1 to 8 Friary court, Saltash; flats 68a and 68b Fore street; flats 3 to 9 Regal court; flats in Culver road, Fore street and Tamar court, Saltash. The estate also includes shops at 67

and 67a, 67b and 68 Fore street, Saltash; shops 1 and 2 and a restaurant at Regal court; and shops at Fore street and Culver road, Saltash; and garages 1 to 8 at the rear; and a farm and estate properties at Ince estate, Saltash; Ince estate, woodlands; Ince farm; and Greeps, Saltash. With such an extensive estate, it is a straightforward property company involved in an ordinary commercial enterprise. It is not simply looking after the farm house with honeysuckle growing round the door.
When the Prime Minister—whom I know to be in some odium at the moment because of his off-the-cuff remarks —picks such people and gets them into the room at No. 10 and says, "Look, I want you to take up this job", they do not say, "I can't do it because of rule 107." They accept the document, as I did in 1976–78. Ministers have done much the same over the years. They accept the document "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".
In order to clarify the position, all those Ministers should be asked either to resign their directorships and get rid of their shareholdings or resign their posts and keep the company activity, if that is what they choose, although I do not take that view: Members of Parliament are paid well enough to enable them to rely entirely on a salary. Members should not have outside interests.
Ministers are in special position, and I hope that the Minister does not regard as muck-raking my defence of ordinary people facing difficult and stiff rules, which are imposed inflexibly on them, when I say that the standards for ordinary people should apply to Ministers.

Mr. William Powell: There are some who think that these debates on the Adjournment are something of an acquired taste. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be of the view that not only has the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) acquired the taste, but I have as well.
I should like to reflect for a moment on the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who referred to some clearly appalling circumstances currently arising at Essex county council. He asked whether it would be possible to impeach a councillor. One disadvantage of the impeachment process is that it involves a trial by the House of Lords. In this day and age, that would be rather time consuming and possibly extremely expensive.
A better way to handle the difficulty that my hon. Friend identified would be to introduce a Bill of attainder, which, if it is enacted into law, instead of involving a trial, simply declares people to be guilty and imposes the penalty of Parliament as a consequence. An Act of attainder is a declaratory process and, if my hon. Friend would like to introduce a Bill that could have its First Reading, I shall be perfectly happy to join him as a sponsor of such legislation. It is several hundred years since it was last used, and the Bill may not make much progres on this occasion. However, it is a solution that I offer my hon. Friend.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman was saying that a Bill could be introduced that automatically declared people guilty. Does the hon. Gentleman believe in civil liberties?

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman knows me better than to ask such absurd questions.
As always, a fascinating collection of subjects has been raised. Those who listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), who raised one of the most important questions facing the world today and covered it in an immensely interesting and comprehensive way, will know that his speech deserves to be read widely.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not be surprised to hear me say that I wish to return to the question of the prosecution of persons who may be guilty of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. I have raised that matter again and again, as I see that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) recognises. Since I last discussed the matter, there has been at least one item of good news. Under resolution 827, passed in June this year, the Security Council of the United Nations has voted to establish an ad hoc tribunal capable of trying those who can be brought before it for alleged war crimes.
Unfortunately, that is as far as the good news goes. No further progress has been made. When I raised that point not long ago with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—I asked him about the appointment of a special prosecutor, who is most urgently required, a point on which I shall base the substance of my remarks—he drew my attention to the undoubted fact that, until the special prosecutor was appointed, the special commissioners appointed last year under resolution 780 will continue with their work.
My right hon. Friend was absolutely right about that, but I am not sure that he understood how little work is being done by those special commissioners. There are five of them, from five different countries—Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Senegal and the United States. They meet every month or two, perhaps for two or three days at a time. Over the past nine months, they have met for only 15 days, and the chairman of the commission, who comes from Holland, has managed to persuade the authorities of the United Nations that he can act entirely on a part-time basis.
As a result of all that, very little work is being done and there are virtually no resources. At the United Nations in Geneva, there are three offices, with two secretaries and three professional staffers, at least up until this month. All of the work that is worth while is being done in the DePaul university in Chicago, because the rapporteur from the United States, Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni, has made available the resources of his law department.
It is outrageous that matters as important as this are not being properly funded and financed by the United Nations. Even though the Security Council and all the members of it have willed the process, they have failed to provide the means.
Some $1·2 million has been set aside but nearly all of it is for administrative measures. No more than $26,900 has been made available so that the special commissioners can travel to Yugoslavia and uncover what are undoubtedly, in Europe, the greatest atrocities of the past decade. The commission has made attempts to get expert teams in Vukovar to exhume bodies from the terrible atrocity of Ovcara. It has not succeeded, but an advance team went in December. It hired a non-governmental organisation in Boston to do a survey of mass graves in Croatia. The group went to Croatia for three days and inspected the Ovcara mass grave. That grave was being protected by UNPROFOR troops from Russia and help was generally forthcoming from the United Nations.
Some 200 bodies were estimated to be in the Ovcara grave and some eight other mass graves have been reported in Croatia. Perhaps 12 are known about in Bosnia, so that is 21 mass graves already believed to exist in former Yugoslavia, either in Croatia or Bosnia. No work whatsoever has so far been done on exhuming the bodies, or on identifying who might be involved, because no resources have been made available.
In February, the Secretary-General of the United Nations opened a voluntary trust fund for Governments to subscribe to so that prosecution work could be prepared. Canada, bless its heart, gave $250,000 in February, the United States committed $500,000 three months later, the Netherlands gave $200,000, Norway $50,000, New Zealand $26,000 and Denmark $20,000—and that is as far as it has gone. We have just over $1 million to fund the work to discover what has been going on.
Meanwhile, despite the call for the appointment of a special prosecutor, and despite what I believe to be the desire of the Secretary-General to proceed—resolution 827 nominates him as the person to appoint the special prosecutor—we have been bereft of resources for the special commission set up by resolution 780 and no appointment has been made. One of the reasons why that has happened—I know that my right hon. Friend will draw my remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary—is the attitude of the British Government. I am afraid that I regard that as extremely regrettable.
As soon as resolution 827 had been passed, the non-aligned members and others in the United Nations advised the Secretary-General that the only suitable person in the world to do the job was the rapporteur of the commission set up by resolution 780, Professor Bassiouni. My right hon. Friend has heard me talk about his immense gifts. As the special rapporteur, and as the man who has made available all the resources of his university department, including computer facilities, he is the man who knows most of all about what is going on in Yugoslavia. He had been there to see for himself some of the matters that undoubtedly require investigation.
It has come to my attention that the Governments of Great Britain and Canada have been putting considerable pressure on the Secretary-General not to appoint Professor Bassiouni and instead to appoint somebody—a Canadian, as it so happens, which is why Canada is joining the United Kingdom—who is much less qualified for the job and who has no substantial experience as a prosecutor. As a Government official in Canada, he would return to his Government post as soon as was convenient thereafter. He is undoubtedly not the best qualified person.
The will of the world is that those matters should be prosecuted, which is why we have established the ad hoc tribunal. If the Secretary-General is now being told by a permanent member of the Security Council, Great Britain, that he should not appoint the most qualified person, that will undoubtedly lead to considerable delay in the necessary work that must take place.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am always intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's contributions and listen to them with great interest—even more so on this occasion. What possible motive could there be for the


collusion between Great Britain and Canada? Why do they want to appoint somebody other than the hon. Gentleman's preferred candidate?

Mr. Powell: Canada is anxious to secure the position of special prosecutor for itself and is seeking allies. There is, however, a more profound reason. Does the world community really want any cases to be brought before the tribunal? Having established the tribunal, might it not be the case that, the more deeply one goes into who might be prosecuted, the more embarrassing the names might become? Lord Owen, accompanied now by Mr. Stoltenberg, although he had Mr. Vance and others with him in the past, has said on a number of occasions that his mission would not be assisted if there were any question of putting Mr. Milosevic or any others on trial. War crimes become something of an embarrassment to those who are seeking a diplomatic solution.
The trouble is that serious crimes against humanity are being committed in the former Yugoslavia and diplomatic progress is slow. The situation is serious. Having established the tribunal, too many United Nations members do not wish to carry out what is implicit in its establishment—namely, to bring forward evidence so that indictments, where proper, can be laid.
The evidence that is being amassed in Chicago suggests that charges for serious crimes against humanity could not merely be brought forward against private soldiers and the small fry who have committed appalling crimes on the orders of others. Evidence is now emerging that increasingly involves the leadership of the Yugoslav army and the leadership of Serbia. We are rapidly reaching the point where evidence that would lead to charges against the leaders, not the foot soldiers, could be brought before an indicting chamber. That is the reason for war crimes tribunals. The more one brings charges against the leaders, the more one interferes in the work being done by people on the diplomatic front. I have referred to some of Lord Owen's comments.
A budget is being prepared for the work of the tribunal. About $35 million is sought, but $5 million only is being allowed for prosecutions. That is little short of outrageous. Resolution 827 mentions The Hague as being an appropriate site for the court, but leaves open the possibility that it may sit elsewhere. The Hague is not an appropriate site. It is too far away from the events. Witnesses would have to be brought too far and the plans that are being made for their protection amount to no more than bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That simply would not do. Those people have been the subject of the most fearsome and horrendous criminal acts. To offer them no more than bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Holland would be to make them extremely vulnerable to reprisals and much greater work to protect witnesses would have to be done.
The prosecution department has a planned budget of only $5 million. That will not take us very far. The special prosecutor will not only need a staff of trained lawyers, detective police officers and military policemen, but facilities that might have to last for more than two years, and $5 million simply would not cover that—$50 million would be a much more realistic sum. It is planned that most of the money will be spent to refurbish a building in The Hague. Nothing could be more inappropriate than

spending large sums of money on refurbishing an unsuitable building in The Hague simply because the Government of Holland wished it to be done in that way.
The time has come for a realistic political grip to be taken on proceedings. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to draw that point to the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The United Nations General Assembly should be asked to vote on realistic budgets, not only for travelling expenses and long weekends for people who work for the United Nations, but for the necessary work to be undertaken.
I beg my right hon. Friends to stop the nonsense of trying to appoint someone whom the whole world knows is not the best person for the job. I beg them to allow the one person in the world who knows about the job to get on with it, and to appoint him now. Each day lost means that witnesses are lost, making it more difficult to examine the evidence, which is bound to disappear the longer that we delay. We cannot wait for the United Nations General Assembly in September, as some people wish. We cannot wait for the clanking processes of international justice to start to grind—perhaps next year or the year after.
Above all, the world community must do what it has been prepared to do until now: to say that what has been going on in Yugoslavia is wrong and that we cannot allow it to pass without enforcing the United Nations' moral sanction and bringing prosecutions before the tribunal.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I will not continue on the same tack as the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), although I think that he is right to pursue the subject of bringing more criminals to justice. They should have to face justice, however long that takes, so I support him in that sentiment.
This House should not leave for the recess until an Education Minister has made a statement about blind pupils and other disabled schoolchildren being refused places at opted-out schools. That new, obnoxious and discriminatory policy seems to have come about as a by-product of Government education policies rather than as a deliberate result of them. I raised the subject on a point of order earlier and Madam Speaker encouraged me to mention it in this debate.
I have notified the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), as Highams Park school is in his constituency. The school has just ended its 20-year-old agreement with a special school nearby to teach blind and partially sighted children. Highams Park has only recently opted out of the local government system. In an article in The Guardian of 24 July 1993 Mr. Andrew Lockhart, the chief education officer of the London borough of Waltham Forest, described what is happening as
a particularly nasty kind of selection.
I shall quote from him again later. The article also stated:
About 15 blind and partially-sighted children attended lessons and were integrated … into Highams Park
school. The head teacher of the school has now said that that arrangement must be brought to an end, although he has imposed a couple of conditions, whereby he will continue the arrangement if he gets extra money—something like £26,000—from the local education authority, plus additional staff support from the special school that was feeding blind pupils into Highams Park.


To ask for money in those circumstances is to hold the authority, the parents of those children and the children up to ransom. Really it is blackmail.
The article goes on to say:
The number of visually-handicapped pupils being integrated fell as Highams Park placed more emphasis on academic courses.
It quotes Mr. Frank Smith, the head teacher of the special school whose pupils fed into Highams Park, who said:
It was difficult to negotiate with the school at the top level. We believe things were made difficult to squeeze us out. Children with special educational needs are not welcome.
That is a serious allegation. Indeed, a blind pupil who was integrated into Highams Park school has had to be taken out. The local authority has found her a place at Rush Croft school, another school with a good reputation in the Chingford area. I pay tribute to the local authority for preserving that blind girl's education within the main schooling sector—no thanks to the head teacher and the narrow-minded governors of Highams Park school.
The chief education officer of Waltham Forest, Mr. Andrew Lockhart, said:
A grant-maintained school can refuse to accept a pupil with special educational needs. In the long term, it would seem to allow grant-maintained schools to select not to have pupils with special educational needs. It is a particularly nasty kind of selection.
I endorse those comments and ask the Government to comment on this serious matter.
It seems that the governors of opt-out schools are trying to grab as much money as they can from the local education authorities at the expense of the schools run by those authorities and that is quite wrong.
The article made it clear that Highams Park school was choosing not to take blind children or children who need special education because it has an eye on the Government's league table policy, which places emphasis on examinations and a school's academic record. That policy is not working properly when it means that schools do not take such children. For a start, there is a false assumption that blind children will not gain academic qualifications and are not intelligent enough to be in the mainstream of education. The Government should not contemplate such an argument.
Secondly, league tables based purely on examinations do not reflect a school's qualities or its achievements. Part of its achievements should be to deal with children who need special education. Plainly, the policy has gone wrong when Highams Park school and other opt-out schools can exclude such children. It seems that schools such as Highams Park are getting ready to go fully private and when that happens they will not want those children. There should be a rule that private and opted-out schools have to take children with special educational needs.
A Lords amendment to the Education Bill would have given local education authorities the power to direct grant-maintained schools to accept such pupils. However, last week the Government turned that down without proper debate. They should think again about their policy. What is the Government's attitude to blind and disabled pupils? Do they want them ghettoised, out of the mainstream, or do they favour my policy, which is that they should be properly integrated in the mainstream education system? If the Government agree, they should require opted-out and private schools to take those pupils and give them a proper education. There should not be an obnoxious discriminatory system of policy. I hope that the Minister will deal with that.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I want to add to the gallery, if not the galaxy, of subjects that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have to address. The single subject of my speech is the BBC World Service, an issue that I have raised before. In an Adjournment debate a month ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) dealt with the matter in detail.
Early-day motion 1780 is by far the best supported motion this Session. It has 378 signatures, the number is increasing, and the motion has not been off the Order Paper since it was put down some months ago. The aim is to obtain 400 signatures. The motion is in the top 10 of all time and its support ranges from right to left across both major parties. Almost all Liberal Democrat Members, including the leader of that party, who does not usually sign early-day motions, have signed it.
I shall not do a complete roll call, but I can say that it is also supported by the right hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the leaders of the Scottish and Welsh National parties. The motion has almost unique cross-section support because the BBC World Service does an outstanding job for Britain. It carries out a function that Britain performs best and in these times of challenge and change we should hang on to such functions.
In national budgetary terms, the money involved is minimal and out of all proportion to the job that the World Service does. The service has already taken a considerable cut. The early-day motion does not argue against the cuts, but points out that there has already been one in the current year of some £5 million and that the service is threatened with a further cut of 2·5 or 5 per cent. The service could not absorb such costs and it will suffer.
The Government should adopt a flexible view in imposing the cuts that will have to be imposed, bearing in mind our financial situation. There must be flexibility in dealing with low-cost functions which Britain does well and which do for Britain an amount of good throughout the world quite incommensurate with the minimal cost that is involved. A deputation representing the signatories of that motion intends to seek a meeting with the Chief Secretary before the recess is out.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I remind the House of the terms of the motion:
That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 27th July, do adjourn until Monday 18th October.
That is 12 weeks less one day. The recess is excessive, and many problems arise because of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that he was prepared to divide the House on his amendment to the motion. If he does, I shall certainly support him.
Who benefits from the 12-week recess? The main beneficiaries are obviously the Government, because any Executive benefits from not being harassed by a Parliament to which they are answerable. This Government particularly will benefit from such a recess in view of their difficulties and the fact that they had to force a vote of confidence on the House. Their only survival factor is the 12-week break, because they hope that in that time something will turn up to their benefit.
Perhaps some hon. Members benefit from such a long recess and some part-time Members with other jobs find it convenient. Perhaps overworked Members find it beneficial to get away from the Chamber and involve themselves in constituency and other work and have a change of scenery. However, our constituents do not benefit from Parliament being away for 12 weeks. Their only benefit is that the Government cannot press on us more anti-social legislation.
Hon. Members use the House to probe the Government on behalf of their constituents, but answers often come from civil servants rather than Ministers who may not particularly care about the issues that are being raised. Civil servants protect their Ministers. The well-understood avenues for hon. Members are written and oral questions, questions on statements, debates and early-day motions. The hon. Member for Leominister (Mr. Temple-Morris) spoke about an early-day motion that has been used in an excellent way because it has been fully extended and a campaign has been organised around it. Even with minor early-day motions, during business questions on a Thursday we can ask whether a particular early-day motion will be discussed. The PPS to the Leader of the House will pass to him details that have been prepared and in that way we can learn the official response.
Some hon. Members may have more access to information than others to pursue their constituents' interests. Various avenues are open to a Minister; a prominent Opposition Member will be listened to. But what happens to Opposition Back Benchers? What they have available to them is attempted contact with Ministers —through letters, telephone conversations and perhaps persuading their hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to harry Ministers into a meeting to discuss a particular subject—but they do not have the ready responses that come from being able to conduct a campaign on the Floor of the House.
We should not have 12-week breaks. Parliament meets long enough over the year and half that 12-week period could be used throughout the year for early-day motions and the like. The absence of early-day motions and such options would not matter much for a week—people can survive that—but their absence for 12 weeks can leave many difficulties and many of the issues that constituents wish to raise are not seriously considered. Last year many hon. Members tried to telephone the Benefits Agency during the recess in order to push particular cases, but they did not have the avenues available in the House to supplement that activity.
We should oppose the motion for the sake of our constituents so that we can represent them better. I hope that, in time, the spread of business of the House will be organised in such a way as to enable us to serve our constituents more effectively.

Mr. Richard Page: I should like to make a brief contribution before the recess and before hon. Members disappear with their buckets and spades to the seaside for 12 weeks minus one day.
The House knows that the size of the public sector borrowing requirement is huge and that the Government have the problem of addressing it. Currently, the

Government have the worst of both worlds: they must address both the deficit and the public perception that they have been cutting public expenditure for years. That incorrect public perception started in 1979, when the then Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, and her Ministers announced that they were going to be tough on spending. That misconception has grown over the past 14 years.
The truth is that, in real terms, public sector expenditure has soared, although the public believe that there have been cuts. Anyone who disbelieves that need only hold a survey on national health expenditure, which will show that the majority of the public think that there have been cuts. We know that there has been an increase, in real terms, of over 50 per cent.
The Government must deal with both expenditure and income. Cutting public expenditure will help, but I believe that it is easier to increase income. Perhaps that is not a fashionable view in the House. I have noticed that some hon. Members are very good spenders, but not good earners.
Let me draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an aspect of the legislation concerning property leasing which could be detrimental, in some cases, to industry and commerce, especially small businesses. That aspect—which is currently under scrutiny—is the growing practice of upwards-only rent reviews and the liability that remains with the original leaseholder of a property if subsequent leaseholders default.
I know that solicitors are supposed to be responsible and point out the pitfalls, especially to people entering such agreements for the first time, but that does not always happen. Many small business men starting their first business do so with starry eyes. We should remove some of the pitfalls, which I believe should not be there in the first place.
I am fully aware that the value of property has a particular niche in public consciousness, but I sometimes wonder whether we have an excessive obsession with property. Once property has been built, it is the use to which it can be put that is of value to the nation.
The two aspects that I have mentioned damage the mobility of companies, their growth and, in some cases, their very existence. If we have consistently high inflation, the upwards-only rent reviews do not matter so much; however, in a stable economy with low inflation—or even during recessions—true rents may drop. I do not see why rents should go for ever onwards and upwards. Companies face varying circumstances over the years. Some companies may want smaller premises—they may be losing money and want to get out of their larger premises —but they are locked in. Some companies may disagree with the rent review and want to move to cheaper premises. Too bad; they are locked in.
Arbitration can create further pressure on a business. Often a company has built up a successful business, it has grown and their customers know where it is; but the cost of location is high. The natural tendency when there is a rent review, if it goes to arbitration, is for the arbiters to say, "That is a successful business: it can afford an upward move." In that way, the rent can unfairly reflect the success of the company to the advantage of the landlord.
As for the liability of the original leaseholder when a lease is disposed of, again there is a locked-in element. If the landlord refuses to lift the liability, it is possible that, several years later, the original leaseholder will be liable for any defaults. The landlord can go back to a company or


person through, literally, several changes of ownership of the lease and receive payment, perhaps several years later. The original person or company will have no influence whatever on the management of the failed company. A limit on liability should be introduced to help such companies, perhaps based on time—for instance, the period to the next rent review.
I will not develop the ways in which the two aspects might be further improved, because of the time restrictions operating this evening. We make great play of the mobility of labour; I think, in turn, we should have a degree of flexibility as regards companies. Small businesses are affected and it is in small businesses that we will see a growth in employment and the profitability of our nation. We put that at risk at our peril. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take this on board when reviewing the legislation for the forthcoming year.

Mr. Tony Banks: I will be extraordinarily brief. I wish to raise the issue of Norwegian whaling. The cause is close to my heart, and is close also to the hearts of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is quite outrageous that, since the ban on commercial whaling imposed in 1986 by the International Whaling Commission, the Norwegians—under the guise of scientific whaling—have slaughtered 1,000 minke whales. That is unacceptable. They have used the word "science" as a way of getting around the ban on commercial whaling.
They have now gone further. At the most recent IWC meeting in Kyoto, Japan, the Norwegians announced that they would completely ignore the renewal of the commercial whaling ban, and that they would resume commercial whaling. They have now done so, and have slaughttered 100 minke whales in the north Atlantic this year. They intend to slaugher another 200 of the whales.
The whales belong to all of us. They are migratory creatures, and are not the property of Norway. Mrs. Bro Harlem Brundtland calls herself a socialist, and goes around the world talking about her green credentials. She has acted like a stinking hypocrite in the way in which she has flouted an international agreement on whaling. This country, and indeed the Government, must take a strong lead: they must make it clear to the Norwegians that their behaviour is unacceptable and that, while they continue to slaughter those beautiful creatures, there is no place for them in any civilised family of nations.
The Government should tell the Norwegians that they should not be allowed to join the European Community until they give up whaling. This country should also take appropriate sanctions against Norwegian goods. If Norway continues whaling, I must say on behalf of many Londoners that the traditional Christmas tree erected in Trafalgar square will not be welcome. If the tree is erected, it will become the focal point of a number of demonstrations. Those demonstrations will, of course, be peaceful, as those of us who love and believe in the rights of co-existence of all living creatures believe in peaceful demonstrations.
I hope that the House and the Leader of the House will join me once again in utterly condemning the actions of the Norwegians.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I hope that we will be able to send a message to the Norwegians that we want to save the whale. Whales are beautiful creatures, and should not be hunted and killed.
There has been a range of calls during this short debate for statements and debates. If one thing is completely predictable, it is that the range of topics covered in our little debate this evening will be exceeded by the range of announcements that will come from the Government immediately after the beginning of the summer recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) pointed out with uncharacteristic cynicism that the Government are convenienced by our removal from this place over the summer.
The Leader of the House's more usual role is to announce what is to happen in the next week or the week after. I wonder whether he could give us a list now of the statements that we can expect from the Executive in the next fortnight. Those statements will cover topics that the Government would be slightly more hesitant in covering were the House still in session. Experience suggests that there will be a range of statements. Can we expect, for example, a supplementary statement on assisted area status? A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed dissatisfaction with the announcement made earlier today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) spoke of the hurt suffered by his former steel industry community. He felt that his area had been treated unfairly. A common theme in the speeches by Opposition Members was that, in making their decisions on assisted area status, the Government have concentrated on what they deem to be political advantage, rather than considering issues on their merits alone.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) mentioned the purchase of the stories of criminals by newspapers, and the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) agreed with that view. Both hon. Members should sign the early-day motion that has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), which addresses that question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) brought to our attention the continuing scandal of the lack of progress over Cyprus. He pinned the blame where it clearly belongs—with the leadership of the Republic of Northern Cyprus. That country is now acting as host to Mr. Asil Nadir. My hon. Friend hoped that Mr. Nadir's present position would focus attention on northern Cyprus. I do not think that it is likely that the Conservative party will pursue the issue with any vigour.
One of the saddest documents I have read in the past year was an article in the July/August issue of Business Age on the funding of the Conservative party. Among a number of major donors named in the article was Mr. Asil Nadir. [HON. MEMBERS: "You don't believe that"] Some hon. Members may say that I do not believe that. I have not, however, heard a convincing refutation of the points contained in the article. Were such a refutation of those thoroughly researched points ever produced, I would consider it in my usual fair-minded way.
I remind Conservative Members of the concluding words of the editor and publisher of the magazine:


Britain's ruling party is riddled with corruption. It's time to clean up government. Now.
That is a damning indictment of the Conservative party, and does not suggest any vigour in following the affairs of Mr. Asil Nadir.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) expressed concern at the rising support for the Labour party in his constituency. Clearly, his rejection by the electorate of Newcastle, East has had a lasting and searing effect on him.
The hon. Gentleman then went on to make a Labour party speech. He advocated state intervention to revitalise the construction industry and public transport in the form of urban light railways. Both are sound Labour party policies, and I congratulate him on his belated conversion to some of the causes we favour. If that conversion has been produced by electoral pressure from the Labour party in Altrincham and Sale, the Conservative party is probably in even more trouble than the newspapers say.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) followed an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennet). My hon. Friend denounced the Sheehy report, spoke about the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and regretted the loss of assisted area status for Manchester. He said that the outcome had been gerrymandered, which was a constant theme during the debate.
The hon. Member for Basildon spoke with some expertise about broken election promises. He could have referred to the promises to maintain the value of the currency, to retain membership of the ERM, not to impose tax increases and not to increase or extend VAT. Those were not, however, among the broken election promises to which he drew our attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) drew our attention to the guidance for Ministers in the declaration of their directorships. He compared that —helpfully, I thought—with the rules for those who claim state benefit. It did seem that those claiming state benefit are treated more harshly than the four Ministers that my hon. Friend mentioned. I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of the serious point in my hon. Friend's speech. If Ministers are in breach of the guidelines, that matter should be drawn to the Prime Minister's attention and rectified immediately. It is a serious matter, and should be treated as such.
The hon. Member for Corby echoed the hon. Member for Basildon in asking what control we have over local councillors. The subject is often raised in the House, but the truth is that hon. Members cannot exercise any direct control over councillors, either members of their own party or of others. The call to introduce a Bill of attainder or to impeach them seem to be rather wild remedies. They were not an appropriate trailer for the serious content of the hon. Gentleman's speech, dealing with war crimes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) raised the disgraceful case of the blind pupil who has been refused a place at an opted-out school. That is a direct consequence of money following the pupil, which means that some pupils are more expensive. Therefore, schools sty that they cannot afford to have them unless they get extra money. According to my hon. Friend, the head

teacher has made it clear that the row is about money. That is a disgraceful state of affairs and one which I hope will be remedied quickly.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made a plea for the World Service. I agree with him: the BBC World Service is an institution much respected among hon. Members on both the Opposition and Conservative Benches. I, too, make a plea for the World Service. On that bipartisan note, I wish the Leader of the House a happy recess.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) was a good deal more emollient than the speech that he made in our last such debate. I welcome the spirit in which he spoke. I noted his reference to Government announcements. All I can do is assure him that Her Majesty's Government remain as assiduous in their activities on behalf of the citizens of Britain when Parliament is not sitting as when it is.
The hon. Gentleman quoted Business Age. If I remember aright, the magazine to which he devotes so much credence described Brunei as a small desert kingdom. He also referred to Bills of attainder. Given the record of some Labour local authorities, I can well imagine that he does not believe that anyone should be in a position to take effective action against malpractice.

Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an excellent programme on Scottish Television tonight revealed some of the scandal of corruption and nepotism in Monklands district council? As a result of the investigations by Scottish Television, no fewer than four agencies are investigating the wrongdoing that has taken place in that council—the Inland Revenue, the fraud squad, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Government.

Mr. Newton: If all those investigations are taking place, that is probably a good reason for me not to comment from the Dispatch Box. The investigations certainly conform with my hon. Friend's assiduous activities in raising the matter over the months. In due course, we shall undoubtedly see a report of the television programme.
I apologise for the fact that I shall not be able to comment in detail in the eight minutes remaining to me on all the speeches that have been made. In particular, I simply pick up the kind invitations of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) to note their remarks and make sure that they are transmitted to the relevant Ministers for consideration. I shall certainly do so.
I also apologise to the one or two hon. Members whose speeches I was not able to hear. I had intended to mention the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), but as I understand that the main burden of his remarks was that the House should go on sitting and sitting, perhaps almost everyone else present in the Chamber is happy that I was not present to lend an ear to his plea, lest I should respond favourably.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) kindly warned me that he would not be able to stay for my reply. He made several important


points and asked me three specific questions about matters affecting the standard spending assessment of Shropshire and elsewhere.
He asked me whether the paper had been received. I can inform him that a representative from Shropshire presented a paper on behalf of the Association of County Councils on the area cost adjustment to the SSA sub-group and the settlement working group earlier this month—I hope that the House has digested all that. All the points that have been made will be taken into account by Ministers before they make their provisional decisions on the 1994–95 revenue support grant settlement later this year. I hope that my right hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment will write further, as need be, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) made several points principally about what had happened to his constituency under the proposed new assisted areas map. I understand that the level of assistance has been reduced because the position has improved since the previous map was drawn. The intermediate area status takes into account the assisted area status of the neighbouring travel-to-work area. The hon. Gentleman also made some points about steel and the actions of the United States, which I shall draw to the attention of the relevant Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) made important points about water quality and cost, generally and in the south-west, and about the important link between Plymouth, Newquay and Heathrow. He described the way in which the link could best be protected. I know that he has corresponded with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who has said that he regards the acquisition by British Airways of Brymon Airways as a reassuring development. I shall make sure that the attention of my right hon. Friend is drawn to everything that my hon. Friend has said on the matter tonight. I shall also draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to what my hon. Friend said about water quality and costs.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) raised four important issues. The first concerned some reports about money that might be paid to Karyn Smith and Patricia Cahill following their return to Britain. I shall confine myself to saying that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Government deplore the exploitation of criminal activities for gain. I am sure that the feelings that the hon. Gentleman expressed will be shared by hon. Members from many parties. I shall draw his comments specifically to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The hon. Gentleman also touched on objective 5 status for his constituency. The criteria for objective 2 and objective 5(b) status were agreed in the structural funds regulations adopted on 20 July. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will announce in the near future the arrangements for drawing up the list of areas which Her Majesty's Government will propose to the Commission for that status, and the arrangements for any representations that regional and local bodies wish to make.
The hon. Gentleman will perhaps not expect me to comment in any depth on his remarks which trenched right into budgetary policy, especially in the immediate aftermath of my announcing the date of the next Budget.
He and several other hon. Members on both sides of the House also made extensive reference to the Sheehy report.

I emphasise, as I did in business questions, that it must be understood that the Sheehy report is a report not by the Government but to the Government, which the Government will consider. There will be full consultation with the police and other interests before any decisions are made on the implementation of the recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) raised the important issue of nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union. He will know that the Government share his anxieties and continue to play a full part in the multilateral action programme agreed at the Munich summit. He made a considered and extensive speech, to which I am sure my right hon. Friends will wish to reply more fully in other ways, as I have said about the speech of the hon. Member for Tooting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) must count as an Adjournment groupie. Few hospital projects can have been pursued more assiduously by a Member of Parliament for so long, certainly with this Leader of the House and, for all I know, with earlier ones, than the South Trafford community hospital.
As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, North Western regional health authority will discuss tomorrow the desirability of a major refurbishment there. I am not sure whether it is proper for me to say from the Front Bench that my fingers will be crossed. I at least hope that my hon. Friend gets what he wants, even if only because it might cut by one the number of speeches in future Adjournment debates.
My hon. Friend made some other important points about housing associations and about the Metrolink. In that, he was supported by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I have taken those points on board.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish made other points about the Manchester travel-to-work area and the assisted areas map. The basis of the Government's thinking is that the TTWA as a whole is not in the worst third for current unemployment. We do not expect the Olympic bid to be affected by the new map. A great deal of other money is going into the area, including in connection with the Olympic bid. Up to £75 million of Government money has been promised.
I cannot add to my implicit comments about Lancashire Hill post office, although I am sure that the Post Office will carefully consider the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As Lancashire Hill is a sub-post office, it is in effect a private venture, and the Post Office cannot compel people to undertake it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) invited me to engage in Essex local political controversy on a scale that I am not sure would be proper, and for which there certainly is not time. I noted his remarks about Pitsea post office, and will draw them to the attention of the Post Office.
I will pass over the latter comments of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but as to assisted area status—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments).

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 52.

Division No. 362]
[7.50 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Jack, Michael


Amess, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Ancram, Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Ashby, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Legg, Barry


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Bates, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Bellingham, Henry
Lidington, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lightbown, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
MacKay, Andrew


Booth, Hartley
Maclean, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bowis, John
Malone, Gerald


Brandreth, Gyles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Brazier, Julian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Merchant, Piers


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Burt, Alistair
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Butler, Peter
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Cash, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Clappison, James
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Nicholls, Patrick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Norris, Steve


Colvin, Michael
Page, Richard


Congdon, David
Patnick, Irvine


Conway, Derek
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Powell, William (Corby)


Cormack, Patrick
Rathbone, Tim


Couchman, James
Richards, Rod


Cran, James
Riddick, Graham


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Day, Stephen
Shaw, David (Dover)


Dover, Den
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Duncan, Alan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Dunn, Bob
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Spink, Dr Robert


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Sproat, Iain


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Steen, Anthony


Fabricant, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Forman, Nigel
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Forth, Eric
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Thomason, Roy


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Thurnham, Peter


French, Douglas
Trend, Michael


Gallie, Phil
Twinn, Dr Ian


Gill, Christopher
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Gillan, Cheryl
Waller, Gary


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ward, John


Gorst, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Wells, Bowen


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Whitney, Ray


Hague, William
Whittingdale, John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Widdecombe, Ann


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Hampson, Dr Keith
Wilkinson, John


Hawksley, Warren
Willetts. David


Heald, Oliver
Wolfson, Mark


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Wood, Timothy


Hendry, Charles



Hicks, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Mr. James Arbuthnot and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)






NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Bayley, Hugh
Loyden, Eddie


Bermingham, Gerald
Lynne, Ms Liz


Boyes, Roland
McAllion, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McAvoy, Thomas


Caborn, Richard
McKelvey, William


Callaghan, Jim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Madden, Max


Clapham, Michael
Mahon, Alice


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cohen, Harry
Miller, Andrew


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mullin, Chris


Cox, Tom
Pendry, Tom


Dafis, Cynog
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Rogers, Allan


Eastham, Ken
Simpson, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Gunnell, John
Spearing, Nigel


Hall, Mike
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hanson, David
Wareing, Robert N


Harvey, Nick



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Johnston, Sir Russell

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 27th July, do adjourn until Monday 18th October.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

RESIDUES IN MEAT

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6654/93, relating to the control of residues in meat, including the proposal that the current Community-wide controls in this area should be strengthened; and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that any further steps should take into account the effective measures already in operation in the United Kingdom to control the level of residues in meat in the interests of consumers and producers and to protect animal welfare.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

HUMAN RIGHTS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9909/92, relating to human rights, democracy and development; and welcomes the Conclusions adopted at the Development Council on 18th November 1992, which take full account of United Kingdom interests in this field.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That the House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Orders of the Day — Latin America

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): It is an honour to open the Consolidated Fund debate this evening with a debate on Britain's relations with Latin America. At the outset, I must declare an interest. My company, which is listed in the Register of Members' Interests, does business with Latin America.
Owing to the accident of family circumstances, I take an intense personal interest in the region. When democracy was restored in Chile, I was instrumental in restarting the Chile all-party group in Parliament, which I now chair. The cause of improving relations between parliamentarians of Latin America and of the United Kingdom is well served in the House by the various parliamentary groups for the region, and especially by the umbrella British-Latin American parliamentary group, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who is an old Argentina hand from his days in Her Majesty's embassy in Buenos Aires.
The British-Latin American parliamentary group holds, in June, an annual parliamentary seminar at Canning house and hosts visits to Parliament of distinguished high officials from Latin America, the next one of which will be tomorrow morning by His Excellency Senor Cesar Gaviria, the President of Colombia, whom we warmly welcomed to the United Kingdom today.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: May I heartily endorse my hon. Friend's welcome to President Gaviria of Colombia. The House will recognise that his visit could hardly be more appropriate, following that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Colombia, the first visit ever by a serving British Prime Minister to a south American country.
Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming proposed visits by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who is on the Front Bench tonight, and other Ministers, and, above all, the proposed visit by Madam Speaker during the recess to endorse this country's long friendship with Colombia, its long tradition of democracy and the new constitution that was initiated by President Gaviria?

Mr. Wilkinson: I am most grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, who knows Colombia particularly well. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will have taken note of what he said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who lived and worked in Brazil and travelled through most of Latin America before being incarcerated in this place, organises an active programme of meetings and lunches with Latin American ambassadors, Ministers, parliamentarians and officials.
We have the closest links with the other place, too, through the distinguished patronage of Lord Montgomery of Alamein, the president of Canning house, Lady Hooper and many other Latin American experts, some of whom, like Viscount Torrington, have led trade missions to the south American sub-continent.
The link with Canning house is of great importance to us in Parliament. Canning house is a unique forum for the study of the politics, business, society and culture of Latin America. Less specialist than the International Institute


for Strategic Studies and more focused than Chatham house, it is an invaluable source of information about Latin America, fulfilling, above all, a unique commercio-diplomatic role which is of inestimable value to London as a centre of Ibero-Latin American interests.
Ministers, to their credit, recognise this as well. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells, whose presence I welcome on the Treasury Bench, made a particularly well-received debut speech to our parliamentary seminar at Canning house on 30 June.
Canning house has been directed by a succession of distinguished former ambassadors to the region, the present incumbent being Sir Michael Simpson-Orlebar, who served as British ambassador in Portugal and Mexico. Funded jointly by individuals, corporate subscribers and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it fulfils a quasi-diplomatic role at minimal cost to the Exchequer and represents outstanding value for money to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British business community. As its 50th anniversary approaches, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would do well to confirm that the grant to Canning house is not at risk.
When addressing a theme as broad and deep as Britain's relations with Latin America, it is easy, when describing British policy towards a region that is not given to understatement, to get carried away by the grandiloquent treatment of what are necessarily inspiring themes, like the blue of the Pacific, the white of the snow on the Cordillera and the red blood of the heroes, as symbolised on the flag of Chile.
The heroics of the founders of the independent republics of south America may inspire us, but we must address the future of the United Kingdom's relations with the region in the context of British history and the development of British trade with the area.
From the ending of the Napoleonic wars to the great war, Britain played a key role in the south American liberation struggle with Spain and dominated the development of the Latin American sub-continent economically and, in many senses, industrially. British capital and entrepreneurs opened up the pampas of Argentina, laid down the railways throughout the southern cone and were active in shipping, insurance, banking, mining and the export of wool, meat and a wide range of primary products to Britain. In return, British manufacturers had a predominant position in south American markets.
Today, although the United Kingdom is still the leading European investor in Latin America, our exports to the region have remained fairly static over the past few years at £1·2 billion. However, probably as a consequence of Britain's leaving the exchange rate mechanism last September, which allowed a realistic valuation of the pound, Britain's exports to the region have risen by more than 22 per cent. in the first quarter of this year.
To my knowledge, the Latin American trade advisory group, local chambers of commerce like the London chamber of commerce, and national chambers of commerce like the British Chilean chamber of commerce all do an excellent job in furthering growing trade between the United Kingdom and Latin America, and so do our embassies throughout the region.
Ministers have also played their full part in increasing British awareness of the importance of the region as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) so rightly reminded the House. As my hon. Friend told us, the process began with the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Colombia and to the Earth summit in Rio. There were also visits by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to Argentina and Chile and by my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to Mexico, Argentina and Chile.
My right hon. Friends made it clear, and this has always been the Government's consistent policy, that there is no incompatibility between British insistence that the sovereignty of the Falklands islands is not an issue and the maintenance of Britain's interests throughout the region. On the contrary, I believe that our presence in the Falkland islands is an important strategic interest which physically demonstrates our concern for the region. It provides a counterbalance to international relationships in the southern cone, it protects passage around the horn and it demonstrates our concern for Antarctica, its resources and for the environment of the southern seas.
However, British exporters must overcome their obsession with markets in the EEC, where we have a trade deficit with all the member countries except Ireland, Spain and Greece, and turn to the growth regions such as Latin America and the Pacific basin. Latin America is well placed to trade with Europe and the Pacific nations. We must ensure that Latin America looks more to Europe, its traditional focus, than to the Pacific basin exporting nations—although we would not think that it did when we see the number of Japanese cars in Santiago
The growth of the leading economies of south America far outstrips that of the EEC nations, although the economies of south America are, of course, much smaller. For example, the rate of growth in Chile last year was 10·4 per cent. For the region as a whole, even including Brazil which suffered recession, recorded growth was 2·6 per cent. last year. Without Brazil, growth rose by 4·3 per cent. There were growth rates of above 5 per cent. in Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guyana, Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela.
An engine for growth in the region has been domestic investment which increased by more than 10 per cent. in six of the aforementioned countries in 1992. Furthermore, net capital inflows to the region from abroad have grown from $8 billion in 1989 to $54 billion last year. At the same time, the burden of external debt has generally diminished.
The regional ratio of interest payments to exports fell from 37 per cent. in 1986 to 20 per cent. in 1992. Only six countries in the region registered increases in inflation last year. In short, with the notable exception of Brazil, most of the principal nations of Latin America, which are significant potential markets for the United Kingdom, saw sustainable growth for the third year running allied to reasonable price stability. Only terrorism remains a nagging problem, especially in Peru and, to a much lesser extent, in Colombia. It is a scourge of contemporary humanity that mercifully appears to be coming gradually under control.
It might be assumed that, with European and north American markets so depressed and with Latin American markets buoyant by contrast, and with no regime in the region seriously out of line from the democratic free enterprise model apart from Cuba, British exporters


would be falling over each other to exploit the trade opportunities of the region. Those opportunities are indeed considerable, as I have explained.
We should take into account, especially in this connection, the British experience of privatisation and of financial services and the commercial efficiency of our privatised utilities such as water and gas. Those experiencies enhance the business opportunities for British exporters throughout the region.
When George Canning proudly wrote, upon the liberation of Spain's south American colonies and their emergence as independent states, that:
The deed is done. The nail is driven. Spanish America is free and, if we do not mismanage our matters sadly, she is English",
we could not have a better example, even 150 years or so on, of the opportunities that present themselves today to the United Kingdom throughout the region—that is, if Her Majesty's Government do not interpose obstacles or impediments to the development of this potentially extremely fruitful trade.
I can list some potential stumbling blocks which should be discreetly removed. The first is the elimination of Portuguese from the GCSE syllabus. That seems crazy. Brazil accounts for 40 per cent. of the Latin American economy.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that, following much pressure by Canning house, members of the British Latin American parliamentary group in this House and many others, the London examining board has restored the examining of Portuguese at GCSE level.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that everyone will appreciate his personal efforts in the matter. He is the leading Portuguese speaker in the House and I am sure that he campaigned especially hard.
Another potential stumbling block is the elimination of key posts in British embassies such as that of defence attaché at our embassy in Ecuador or the downgrading and paring of British missions which militates against Britain's interests to strengthen diplomatic and commercial efforts throughout the region. In addition, the process militates against the provision of the maximum assistance to British business men in what is all too often for them still unfamiliar territory. If reductions in diplomatic manpower are necessary, they should occur in EEC countries with whom we are supposed to be moving towards ever-closer union.
We must also consider the malign effects of the European Community's common agricultural policy. I will let others address the current EC banana regime. However, curtailing European imports of Chilean apples seems daft to me as is the CAP policy which militates against our importing succulent cheap Argentine and Uruguayan beef in favour of expensive, scrawny European meat.
However, I regret to say that every now and again a cause celebre erupts out of a blue sky to prejudice years of political and commercial effort and it does so in a way which could seriously damage the normally outstanding good relationships between the United Kingdom and a Latin American country. A case in point is the orimulsion issue, whereby Her Majesty's Government are seeking to impose duty on the import of Venezuelan-produced bitumen transported in suspension with water, and to

persuade the European Community to classify it as a mineral oil. Coal and water slurry does not become something different just becasuse a water-based suspension is required to transport coal down pipelines, nor does bitumen lose its qualities as bitumen if mixed with water. The British case is, I regret, disingenuous to say the least. I have seen the minutes of the relevant EEC committee, and the United Kingdom is unnecessarily in the minority of one on the issue.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that orimulsion is considered by many to be an extreme pollutant when burnt in power stations, as is proposed?

Mr. Wilkinson: That is not the case. It produces more suphur dioxide, but, in every other aspect, the combustion of orimulsion produces fewer noxious emissions than that of oil or coal.
The issue is potentiallly prejudicial to a British-Venezuelan joint venture company, BP Bitor, which makes the product, and to our trade with Venezuela, which the Department of Trade and Industry, following an admirable initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has been a target country for British exporters. The United Kingdom should accept European Community proposals on the matter and come to an accommodation with Venezuela, or I fear that the United Kingdom will risk the widening and deepening of a wholly unnecessary dispute.
I now refer to Export Credits Guarantee Department cover. To his credit, the previous Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), announced an extra £1·2 billion for ECGD cover in his last Budget statement. However, the ECGD's portfolio management systems criteria for local risk and premium pricing do not accord with present south American realities.
Rightly, Chile has competitive ECGD premium rates, under the Government of President Aylwin, as under their predecessor, and the country has maintained essentially sound economic policies. However, in markets of immense potential for British exports, such as Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and Argentina, British ECGD premium rates are far higher than those for export credit guarantee cover available to firms in our competitor countries. The matter should be rectified, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do so in his Budget statement of 30 November.
The House has always taken an interest in Latin America. It might be a minority interest, but on occasions it can be of great influence, as was the role of a former Member for Westminster, Lord Cochrane, who was wrongly expelled from the House, from the Navy and from the Order of the Bath, for fraud in 1816 and who went to Chile and founded the Chilean navy. His capture of the Spanish flagship Esmeralda in Callao harbour contributed largely to the independence of Chile and Peru. In the House of Commons of those days, his contemorary, James Mackintosh, said:
There has never been a major demonstration of judgment, wisdom and action capability than the one demonstrated on that occasion.
Few of us have such a eulogy addressed to anything that we do, but few of us are in Admiral Lord Thomas Alexander Cochrane's league for originality and for


courage. However, if we share but half of his love of liberty, we will have served our country well and, I hope, south America, too.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that we are debating Latin America, as we seem to do every July. It is a good tradition, because that area of the world is not sufficiently discussed. My problem with the speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is that I do not agree with the philosophy behind it. The problem is that, in his heroic moves to liberate Latin America from the clutches of the Spanish, what George Canning was about was liberating people from the Spanish in order to put them under another colonial power. He was not talking about the liberation of Latin America.
Indeed, the regimes that followed the George Canning liberation movement were essentially elitist regimes of the settler community. They did much to oppress the indigenous population. Indeed, many practised wholesale genocide against the indigenous population of south America. The Spanish conquistadors and their move into Peru and what was later to be called Bolivia were unbelievably brutal, but the regimes that followed were also brutal towards the indigenous population. Indeed, that brutality continues today towards large numbers of indigenous peoples living in the Amazonas region, in particular. We should remember that. The reason why it did not become a massive British colony was that the British and the United States agreed on the Monroe doctrine and then calmly divided up that part of the world, largely in the interests of the United States.
The other aspect on which I disagree with the hon. Gentleman—he will not be surprised, because we have had this discussion many times—is his glib description of democracy and free enterprise as synonymous, equal and mutually dependent. Many Opposition Members simply do not accept that. When we saw the brutality of the free enterprise model under General Pinochet, there was not an awful lot of democracy in Chile at that time. There was great free enterprise. There was also great brutality in the promotion of the free enterprise model, supported by the World bank and the International Monetary Fund in many other parts of Latin America.
Indeed, it is 10 years or so since the great debt crises of the early 1980s, when the Latin American Parliament as a whole voted for a process of refusing to pay the interest on debts, and that sent a shiver down the spine of the United States and world banking systems. That crisis was averted by a series of bilateral deals and buy-offs and, indeed, in the United States nationalisation and subsequent resale to the private sector of some banks by the Reagan Administration to prevent the collapse of that banking system. But the way in which the overseas debt burden has been reduced in Latin America has had some truly horrific consequences.
The debt burden came about basically because of the increase in world oil prices and the underpricing of primary products produced throughout Latin America. The debt-for-equity swaps that have been imposed upon one economy after another have had some horrendous

consequences in terms of social infrastructure, privatisation of former state-owned institutions, cuts in public spending and the laying off of state employees, with some truly horrific consequences for the education and health services of the countries concerned. That is not the equality of free enterprise and democracy; that is the brutality of the private sector saying that it is not prepared to spend anything on public services and public infrastructure. We should be aware that many social problems of Latin America are closely related to those issues.
The other general problems throughout Latin America include enormous population movements away from rural areas into the shanty towns surrounding major cities. That is a consequence of changing agricultural systems and practice. In the case of Chile, it is a consequence of wholesale land purchases—indeed, in some cases, by multinational capital to develop high-intensity fruit farming which requires fewer workers than the previous farming practice did—and still higher levels of unemployment in the shanty towns around many capital cities of Latin America. Surrounding every capital city in Latin America is a smoking cauldron of extremely poor, extremely bitter and extremely angry people.
It might be strange for those in western Europe to note that Latin American countries have refused to pay the foreign debt because it is unpayable, unjust and uncollectable. However, those reasons are common parlance among liberal and left-wing parties throughout Latin America. It is a feature of normal political debate.
The development of the Latin American economies has caused some serious environmental and health problems. The frightening spread of cholera throughout Peru just two years ago was a consequence, in part, of the cuts in health programmes and in the development of water purification plants. That was done to please the wishes of the bankers of the north. Serious environmental concerns have been expressed about the extraction of minerals and the construction of roads throughout the Amazon rain forest and the destruction of that forest.
It would be wrong in a debate about Latin America not to mention some of the people who are truly heroic, such as Chico Mendes, who stood up for the rights of indigenous people within the Amazonas region. In effect, he was murdered by the interests of multinational capital; its future for the Amazons region was different from that envisaged by Mendes.
In the past decade things have changed considerably in Latin America. Most of the military regimes are no longer in government and there is a civilian or quasi-civilian regime in most countries. The human rights abuses that took place under the military regimes of Argentina, Chile, Honduras and Nicaragua, as well as in other countries, have not, however, ceased. The disappeared have not returned. The graves of thousands and thousands of people have not yet been discovered. They died because they were not prepared to support military regimes and because they believed in a genuine form of liberty.
Although no one can be happy with the current situation in Peru and Bolivia, there is an economic dimension to the terror. The poverty in many of the rural areas and the lack of decent prices for the primary products produced by the campesinos, particularly those in the Andean region, have turned those people to the cultivation of drugs. Drugs, quite simply, are far more profitable than the returns on maize. It is possible to make


a living from growing drugs, but it is not possible to make a living from growing normal crops. Until pricing and poverty are addressed, the attempts to wage war on drugs will not be successful. I do not condone the production, distribution, sale or use of drugs—it is an evil and vile trade— but one must recognise that it has an economic logic of its own which we cannot ignore.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to Chile, which I have visited on a number of occasions. In common with him, I have family connections with Chile, but I have no commercial interests in that country, or anywhere else for that matter. The situation in Chile has changed dramatically, but we should not forget that President Salvador Allende was brutally murdered in 1973 —20 years ago this year—for leading a Government who sought to oppose the power of multinational capital. He was assassinated by the forces led by General Pinochet. Some 20,000 people were killed at the start of the coup and, over the next 17 years of Pinochet's total control, 50,000 lost their lives. One million Chileans were forced into exile as a result of the terror that was wrought upon them by that brutal, fascist regime.
That regime had its apologists in Britain. It had its apologists in the House. It was one of the most brutal regimes that the world has ever known. Although the situation in Chile has dramatically improved, it is faced with serious constitutional problems. General Pinochet is still the head of the armed services and members of the armed services are still protected from any type of judicial process taken against them for denial of human rights, murders or for taking part in the disappearance of people. For example, the murder of Orlando Letelier, in Washington in 1980, led the United States authorities to call for General Contreras to be extradited. That cannot happen because he is protected by the constitution, which protects the military. It is a serious matter when someone who is known or is believed to have murdered Letelier cannot be extradited to face the judiciary in the United States.
There are still 80 political prisoners in Chilean gaols, who have been there since the Aylwin Government came to power. Since that time, another 120 people have gone to prison. They believe that they have been sent there for political reasons and that they should be released.
Although six secret prisons and cemeteries have been
discovered by the human rights commission in Chile and some state compensation has been paid, all human rights abuses should be uncovered. At least those who have lost family and friends—I know those who have gone through the horror of wondering what happened to a person who was taken away in the middle of the night—would then know what had happened to the bodies of their loved ones after they were murdered by the secret police in Chile during that horrific and vile period.
During that time a Conservative Government in Britain happily supplied arms and traded with that regime. We should not forget that—it is not forgotten by many in Chile.
At the time of the Falklands war it was quite correct to criticise the appalling human rights record of the Galtieri Administration in Argentina and that of previous and subsequent Administrations. Because we are now trading with Argentina and because it was part of the coalition force in the Gulf war, there is now, apparently, much less concern in western Europe about the fate of those who disappeared.
I still receive letters and a magazine from a wonderful group of women known as the abuelas de la Plaza de Mayo. They are the grandmothers of the disappeared of the Plaza de Mayo. Those children were taken away during the Galtieri regime and it is believed that they were given to the families of officers of the Argentine army. It is horrific to think of those women looking for their families. I do not know why the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) seems to find this so amusing.

Mr. Ray Whitney: I do not find it amusing. What I find extraordinary is that, year after year, the hon. Gentleman replays the battles of the 1960s. He seems to have no idea what has happened since then and no interest in what has happened in the 1990s.

Mr. Corbyn: I raise this subject year after year and I shall go on doing so.

Mr. Whitney: I will be here.

Mr. Corbyn: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman will be here to listen. I shall continue to raise this subject because I believe that the issue of human rights abuses does not go away just because a different person is in Government house. If one has lost family, one has lost family. If one does not know what happened to a person, one does not know. It is perfectly reasonable that those people should want to know what happened.
We are, apparently, also concerned about human rights and so we have some responsibility to bear. All that I am saying is that those people should not be forgotten. I am not reliving all the battles of the past, but I have recognised that there is still a need for human rights and human justice. It might be convenient for Conservative Members to say that we are in the 1990s and can forget about the past, but I remember those self-same hon. Members apologising for the Pinochet regime, year after year, in debates on Chile. I intend to keep reminding them of that because that is necessary.
It is worth considering what has happened in Nicaragua since the Chamorro Government took over in 1990. The rate of unemployment in that country is now at an all-time high, as is the level of external debt. Apparently the serious environmental and economic problems are getting worse. The United States promised aid once the Chamorro Government took office, but most of that aid has not been forthcoming. Most of the European Community aid that has been earmarked for Nicaragua has been tied to specific development projects. I understand that only half that aid is now capable of being spent because there has been such a cut in Government agencies that they are now incapable of administering such aid.
Nicaragua is suffering, as almost no other country in the region has suffered, from the type of quack economics that we thought had been forgotten about with the Chicago school. Unemployment is now reaching an all-time high and there is great poverty in Managua and the other cities. We should consider giving more aid to Nicaragua to help those people to get out of poverty. They suffered enough during the civil war from the United States bombardment. If the United States would just spend a fraction of the money on development aid that it spent on bombing the Sandinistas out of existence, the people of Nicaragua would be considerably better off.
Some of us have seen at first hand the horrors of years of conflict in El Salvador. I am glad to say that it is no


longer being fought and elections are due to take place. But questions have been asked in another place about the size of the disfranchised electorate, the number of serious spelling mistakes and double entries on the electoral register and the need for vigilance during registration and preparation for the election. The Foreign Office has been asked to send delegations from this country to assist and observe during the electoral registration period and the election itself. If democracy is to mean anything in El Salvador, everyone must have the chance to take part in the electoral process. I hope that the Minister will tell us the British Government's response to these requests.
On 30 August Honduras will hold a commemoration day in honour of the disappeared who vanished under former military regimes, thanks to the secret police. Before we embrace any new Government or regime we should always ask them about their human rights record and about the fate of the many people who stood up for human rights, for dignity and for trade unions and who were murdered or spirited away for their pains.
On Saturday last week the fourth meeting of the Sao Paolo forum ended. It represents more than 100 political movements throughout the Caribbean and Latin America. The last meeting took place in Havana; the first was held in Brazil three years ago. The forum brought together people who are concerned by the fact that the whole continent is in thrall to neo-liberal economics, with its attendant unemployment and obsession with market economics. They believe that there must be a better way of organising society, as do many other people all over the world.

Mr. Wilkinson: I do not want to enter into a long argument with the hon. Gentleman, but may I point out that Chile, the real forerunner of free market reforms throughout south America, has only 4·4 per cent. unemployment? No ne can say that free market economics engenders unemployment. If organised properly, free enterprise engenders prosperity; and the new Government seek to share that prosperity much more widely.

Mr. Corbyn: Granted, economic growth in Chile has been fast by any standards, but I question the basis for the 4·4 per cent. statistic. The hon. Gentleman should ask some of the voluntary agencies working near Santiago and in the poblaciones about the high unemployment there and about the informal economy. There is still serious poverty in Chile, even though unemployment there is not as high as elsewhere. There is also bad housing and had health care —and, in any case, it was never the poorest country in the region.
Today, 26 July, is an historic day for Cuba: an important national day. In 1959 Cuba was one of the poorest countries in the region, with the highest degree of illiteracy and the most serious social problems. Today illiteracy has been conquered and Cuba has a low infant mortality rate and high standards of educational achievement—despite a rigorous blockade by the United States throughout the period. Owing to the break-up of the Soviet Union and the Comecon trading block, and Cuba's inability to trade as before with eastern Europe and the USSR, it faces serious problems, as my hon. Friends who have visited the country more recently than I have can testify.
It cannot be right that the blockade should include food, medicines and fuel, aimed at breaking up the very infrastructure of life. The British Government have always allowed trade with Cuba but never encouraged it. I hope that they will at least recognise that it is wrong to starve the population of Cuba unti they agree to a change of political course. There is not much sign of the people of Cuba wanting such a change; there is every sign that they would like to live in dignity and independence. So I hope that the British Government will bring what pressure they can to bear on the United States Adminstration to lift the blockade so that the Cubans can at least enjoy a reasonable standard of living.
Running through many people's attitude to Latin America is the belief that western Europe and the United States can impose an economic system and way of life on the continent. They fail to understand the anger beneath the surface, not among the political elite of the region but among people who will no longer tolerate the impoverishment of parts of the continent, particularly of those living in the shanty towns around major cities.
I welcome trade with Latin America. We should recognise that, for a long time, many workers in farms and factories there have been grossly underpaid for their efforts. If there is any justice in the world, much more debt must be written off and much fairer trading arrangements with the continent must be agreed.
I believe that poverty, oppression and human rights abuses go together. We should do what we can to alleviate all three horrors, which for too long have been visited on the people of Latin America.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on initiating the debate, which is becoming something of a tradition in the House every July.
This has been a good year for Latin America: democracy has been sustained, despite the pressures sweeping the world. In Brazil, the impeachment of President Fernando Collor de Mello on corruption grounds has been carried out in a constitutional manner with his replacement by Vice-President Itamar Franco. In Venezuela the same progress has happened, with the suspension of President Carlos Andrés Perez to face charges of corruption. He has been replaced as an interim measure by Senator Ramόn José Velásquez.
In Peru the duly elected President suspended the Congress in what has been termed a new process of self-coup. In the face of pressure from within Peru and from the international community he has backed down and the Congress has been superseded by a newly elected Congress, thereby restoring democracy to Peru. That example may have caught on. Indeed, President Serrano in Guatemala did likewise, suspending the Congress and the constitution, following which rapidly applied pressure led to his resignation and replacement by Ramiro de Léon, the human rights ombudsman of his country. So democracy, despite all the pressures, is safe and well in Latin America —with the notable exception of Cuba.

Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that before and during the election in Cuba last February a widespread campaign organised by Cuban exiles in Miami and by American-owned television and radio stations urged the Cuban


people to destroy their ballot papers or not to vote. In the event, 80 per cent. of those entitled to vote came out and supported the regime run by Fidel Castro. The hon. Gentleman should reflect for a moment on the fact that the Government whom he supports have never had the support of more than one third of those entitled to vote. He should be hesitant before decrying Cuba's lack of democracy—it has more democratic legitimacy than this Tory Government have.

Mr. Arnold: I should have been much more impressed if candidates other than those approved by communist party committees had been allowed to stand. I shall return to that issue in a moment.

Mr. Whitney: Will my hon. Friend also invite the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to consider why, if that is the case, at the recent conference in Brazil every other Government leader in Latin America, and the presidents of Portugal and Spain, urged President Castro to introduce democracy to Cuba at last?

Mr. Arnold: The reason is that what is continuing to happen in Cuba—the only unreformed Marxist communist regime in the world, other than one in Asia, I believe —is a blot on the democratic escutcheon of Latin America and is a disgrace.
On the question of economics in Latin America, it is notable that, after a decade of stagnation, recovery is under way. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood catalogued the impressive growth in gross domestic product throughout the continent. Trade liberalisation has led to far greater activity and markedly increased imports, which has to be good for Britain's opportunities, but only modest increases in exports. The resultant trade deficits could, indeed, cause an economic crisis in Latin America.
The growing protectionism in the United States and Europe is dangerous, which is why this country's efforts for a successful completion of the Uruguay round of GATT is so appreciated in Latin America and is also vital to it. It would be a tragedy were there to be a return in Latin America to the tried and failed policies of import substitution.
It has been a good year for Britain's relations with Latin America. Our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Colombia. He visited Cusiana, one of the largest oil discoveries of recent years, and he also visited Brazil for the Earth summit and held bilateral meetings with the Brazilian Government. Our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently visited Argentina and Chile, and our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been to Mexico and Argentina and spoke of his impression of the development and sophistication of both countries.
Other Ministers have also visited Latin America in recent months or are due to he visiting it during the recess, joined by Madam Speaker. Ministers have been ably supported in their visits by our embassies. I counsel my hon. Friends at the Foreign Office not to impose false economies by closing or reducing our diplomatic and trade missions in Latin America.
In the other direction, we have been visited by President Lacalle, a splendid anglophile friend of this country. We are honoured this week by the visit of President Gaviria of Colombia, who will visit the House tomorrow morning for discussions with members of the British-Latin American parliamentary group and other right hon. and hon.

Members. There have been visits to this country and to this Parliament by delegations of parliamentarians from Mexico and Brazil and countless Latin American Ministers and political leaders.
The greatest credit for the improvement in our relations goes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford Mr. Garel-Jones), who, until his retirement, gave three great years to strengthening British-Latin American relations. His greatest strength has been his natural empathy for Latin Americans, derived from his command of the Spanish language, which greatly enhanced our relations with the Hispanic countries in particular. I wish the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), well in his task, not least in following my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford.
However, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford had a fault, it was his propensity to give to the only non-hispanic major country in Latin America—Brazil—far less weight than it deserves. For that reason, the remainder of my remarks deal with the importance of Brazil.
Of the 24 countries of Latin America, Brazil covers more than one third of the area. It is the ninth largest economy in the world. Its annual GDP is US$500 billion., which is three times that of Mexico and more than twice that of Belgium. The economy of the state of Sao Paulo alone is one and a half times that of the entire Republic of Argentina. We must put Brazil's importance into perspective.
Although concerns are rightly expressed about the high rates of inflation suffered in Brazil, they are not a new phenomenon. Over the decades, Brazilians have learned to live with them and, indeed, how to prosper. In recent years, Brazil has resumed the servicing of its foreign debt and has built up current foreign currency reserves of almost US$25 billion. For many years, it has run a significant trade surplus. Recently, its trade surplus was exceeded only by those of Japan and Germany. This year, it is expected to reach US$20 billion—if only we had such a surplus. Brazil's growth this year is forecast to be 3·5 per cent. which, in real terms, is a very significant increase in such a vast economy.
How is Britain participating in such vast growth? We have a long tradition of co-operation with, and investment in, Brazil, going back to independence early in the previous century. Brazil's public utilities owe much to their British founding fathers. We have long been a supplier of capital goods and technology, but we must continue to participate in great projects in that country.
I draw to the House's attention some projects currently under consideration: the Bolivia to Sao Paulo state gas pipeline, which is worth billions; the cleaning of the Tietê river, which serves the state of São Paulo; the development of the Tietê-Paraná waterway, which links up to the whole waterway system which descends to the River Plate; and the modernisation of Brazil's ports.
British industry's difficulties in competing for a part in such projects is the lack of cover from the Export Credits Guarantee Department, in competition with cover available to our competitors from their national credit insurance agencies. Companies can compete, as Westland showed by achieving the contract to supply eight Lynx helicopters to the Brazilian navy and to recondition its current fleet of such helicopters. It could only be done,


however, with the financing support of the Banco do Brazil. We cannot rely on its being achieved on each and every occasion.
These difficulties are not confined to Brazil alone. The new ECGD criteria are hampering British trade throughout Latin America. The ECGD has announced cover for Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela but, even then, small British exporters cannot obtain access to that cover due to ECGD's need for bank guarantees and the lack of existing lines of credit. In particular, it works against small exporters pursuing credits of between £50,000 and £250,000. There have been too many examples recently of British groups having to source through foreign countries to obtain credit cover. I cite two examples.
The first involves GEC Alsthom. Due to the better deal offered by Coface, the French Government export credit department, its recent project to supply electricity generating units to Mexico had to be channelled through its French associate. Secondly, the project by Biwater at Puerto Vallarta in Mexico had to be sourced from Spain due to the better conditions offered by its Government's export credit agency. High on our Government's European Community agenda must be the standardisation of terms by Community Governments' export credit agencies.
I point out to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that it is indeed true that General Pinochet remains head of the armed forces in Chile and that he has behaved himself in that position. However, Humberto Ortega, the brother of the former Sandinista president of Nicaragua, remains head of the army of Nicaragua. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously trying to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Is the hon. Member giving way?

Mr. Arnold: In view of the time, I shall finish my speech.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Due to the shortage of time, my remarks will have to be brief, but I hope to deal with some of the matters that have arisen in the debate. I pay tribute to the chairman, the secretary and the members of the Latin American group for the work that they do on behalf of fostering relationships with Latin America. It is appreciated on both sides of the House. I also pay tribute to the work that is done by and through Canning house to develop business, cultural, academic and social links with Latin America. There is a great deal of cross-party support for, and a desire to restore, our historical relationship with the area. That is why I especially regret the remark just made by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), and I shall return to the point of attitudes towards south America and some of the obnoxious regimes that have existed there.
One of the things that have struck me since taking this job is that so many people in this country simply see the continent of south America as a business opportunity. That is why I am pleased about the work that has been done by Canning house that tries to extend the

relationship with Latin America beyond that. The hon. Member for Gravesham implied in last year's debate that the area is simply a business opportunity. He quoted the fact that the ex-Minister the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) had
emanated a clear vision that Britain is missing out on business opportunities."—[Official Report, 9 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 589.]
Business opportunities are important, but I hope that developing south America is not simply seen as that, or even as an extension of our colonial rule, which did not last all that long, thank goodness.
Latin America is in a promising phase. I use that word advisedly because, although the continent holds promise of democratic and economic development, both are fragile and could be easily reversed or eliminated. Labour Members are delighted, as are all hon. Members, to see democracy develop in the region and it was pleasing to see Mr. Ramiro de Leon Carpio, the human rights activist, become president of Guatemala with an absolute commitment to rebuilding democracy.
However, all is not good news in Latin America. Although some economic growth has been achieved, it has varied from country to country. Progress is patchy and sometimes non-existent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, the vast debts that were accumulated in the 1970s and 1980s have resulted in a reversal of the policies of protecting industries. Under the instructions of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, countries now have to throw open their economies to encourage foreign investment and expose their domestic industries to foreign competition. That process has been in operation long enough for us to see some of the effects of liberalisation—they are not all good as Conservative Members would like us to believe.
In previous debates, Conservative Members have talked at great length, as they have today, of free-market economics. The right hon. Member for Watford said in a prescriptive mood on 22 July 1991:
it is the combination of freedom provided by liberal democracy together with market economics that will deal with the cardboard cities and with the appalling poverty"— [Official Report, 22 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 858.]
Since then, as hon. Members need scarcely he reminded, the shanty towns of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have not gone away. Only last weekend, we saw the appalling crime of child murder on the streets of Rio de Janeiro.
To try to create the impression that all is well and progressing is fundamentally wrong. As with domestic and European matters, the ex-Minister got it wrong here. To think of Reaganomics and Thatcherism as a solution to the ills of Latin America is as foolish a proposition as it was and is in this country.
The debt crisis is over, but only for the banks. The United Kingdom banks have used the tax laws and financial markets to cut their losses, but the debtor countries of south America still owe what they did before and are still spending one third of their export earnings paying interest on debts. They are still trying to earn more abroad and spend less at home to repay debts. It is wrong and misleading to suggest that all is well and that the debt problems of those countries have been resolved. In addition to putting the market first, Governments have been forced to sell state-owned industries and cut health, education, other domestic needs and import taxes.
Most hon. Members would agree that it is arrogant to generalise on Latin America because each country has its


unique problems. The time that the hon. Member for Gravesham devoted to Brazil showed the uniqueness of that country, but some issues apply to many south American countries: the fragility of democracies, the issue of human rights, the exceptional level of poverty, which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North mentioned, and the undue influence and participation of the military, which although not in government is seemingly waiting in the wings.
Although Chile, Mexico and Argentina performed well, in other countries, such as Brazil, reform has juddered to a halt and in Venezuela, partly as a consequence of political crises, progress is intermittent. In Ecuador and Paraguay, the process is only just beginning.
The opening up of economies is likely to boost consumption rather than production, and unless indigenous industry is developed, promoted and invested in, countries will retreat into being primary producers with their people receiving only the trickle down benefits from an elite group of people. in last year's debate, the hon. Member for Gravesham spoke of the republics'
enthusiastic adoption of the free market system
giving
great inspiration, which this House should duly recognise." —Official Report, 9 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 589.]
Unlike him, I believe that it is vital that the continent is not left to the mercy of market forces. State participation is essential, and there is a mood among Latin American people for change and for a rejection of harsh market economics.
Although greater economic stability in civilian government has become the norm for most of Latin America, the majority of its people have not shared in the economic growth. The 1992 Economic Commission of Latin America reported that 183 million of Latin America's 450 million people already live below the poverty line. The Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Cooperation showed that, of 27 million people in central America, 19 million live in poverty and 13 million live in extreme and abject poverty. That is hardly a success story for free enterprise.
As a result, millions of people have been forced to work in the informal economy. People who once worked together on farmers' and workers' co-operatives are now having to sell sweets and cigarettes in the city, competing with each other just to get enough to eat. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Gravesham thinks that poverty and starvation is a laughing matter, but Labour Members certainly do not. Half of Peru's population—12 million people—earn only enough in a week to buy food for two days. Chilean apple pickers received $3 dollars a day in 1987; in 1991, although living costs had doubled, they received the same. That is part of the "economic miracle".
As larger estates expand to produce more crops and beef for export, poor people are forced off the land into either ecologically fragile areas or to the sprawling shanty towns that surround most urban areas.
Government measures to curb inflation and to meet foreign debt commitments have led to cuts in services and high unemployment. People leaving rural areas and moving to the cities face unemployment and inadequate housing and services. They are denied credit. their environment is deteriorating and their incomes are declining because they are paid unfair prices for their produce.
The continent is paying a high cost for free market economics, not only by the destruction of parts of its economy, but by the pollution of its environment, which is under considerable pressure. Although Chile is a success by most neo-liberal standards, and foreign investment has topped £3 billion in the past year, as the world's second fastest growing economy, there are still areas of environmental pollution that need to be looked at urgently.
Coming to my present job from the defence team, one of my first tasks was to read last year's debate on Latin America. One thing that surprised and disturbed me—I was not really surprised—was the way in which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) used what should have been a constructive opportunity to indulge in his partisan rantings about far-left organisations. Such a one-eyed view of the world will never be in danger of disappearing as long as the hon. Member for Gravesham follows on the hon. Gentleman's tailcoats.

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman described my "partisan rantings". Is he referring to my attack on the Sendero Luminoso, because no other "ranting" took place? If the hon. Gentleman calls that ranting, I accept the charge. Is he seeking to defend Sendero Luminoso? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Rogers: No, not at all. The hon. Gentleman is using a typical ploy. He tried the same ploy last year against my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I will not fall for it. The hon. Gentleman's prejudices came through. I suggest to hire that he reads his speeches.
The inability of both hon. Members to recognise that terrorism is not exclusive to any side of the political spectrum is disturbing, and we have seen a manifestation of it this evening. Terrorism is utterly condemned by decent politicians wherever it comes from, especially by those who might condemn the right-wing neo-fascist dictatorships, about which the hon. Gentlemen seem to be such experts. Pinochet is one example.
It is important that the opportunity for debating Latin America is not used year after year in the way that it has been in previous years. I hope that what I am saying tonight will stop that happening. People of all democratic persuasions, or even of no particular persuasion, suffer when the generals and their business men colleagues repress, starve, torture and imprison.
The same ordinary people suffer when the so-called liberation movements do exactly the same. There is no refuge for criticism of terrorism. The only decent and proper way to conduct a debate on democracy and human rights is to remember that terrorism is an absolute evil which has no qualification whatever.
One serious concern that I should like to mention briefly—I shall sit down immediately afterwards to be fair to the Minister, as I have slightly overrun my time—is the issue of drugs. It is a problem. We should do more for the people who are being forced into the drug economy because of their inability to sell their products abroad. It is a great shame that economists, for example, in Peru can say that the Peruvian economy is addicted to drugs.
Britain's continued involvement in Latin America is crucial. We must not allow ourselves to be isolated from the region. The all-party group, to which I and most of the hon. Members present belong, has a vital role to play in it,


but it has to be a non-partisan, cross-party role. We should support increased human rights, environmental protection and the development of the regions. There is no intrinsic reason why Latin America should be poor. It has immense natural resources and we should all try to help it to achieve its potential.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing the debate and on describing our relations with Latin America with such knowledge and understanding. I believe that the debate has become something of an annual event and, as a newcomer to the job, I welcome that. I hope that I shall take part in many future such events.
Even in my few weeks in these responsibilities, I have become aware that something of a new chapter is opening in our long-standing relations with Latin America. At least some of the credit for that belongs to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). I join in the generous tribute paid to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who put on record the energy and enthusiasm that my right hon. Friend brought to that part of his job. His commitment enabled Britain to strengthen her relations with a number of those countries, and the benefits of that will endure for many years.
Latin America has long been regarded as having exceptional potential, both in its natural and human resources. The problem is that, too often, that potential has not been realised, but the recent changes that have been described by many hon. Members justify our optimism about the future. The most important overall fact is that democracy is established in the continent as the normal form of government. There are exceptions, but they are few in number. The most noticeable is Cuba, which has been alluded to by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who is not in the Chamber now, made the remarkable claim that Cuba's democratic credentials were secure because its Government received 80 per cent. of the vote in the last elections there. That was not very difficult to achieve, as no candidate who did not have the consent and support of the ruling party was permitted to stand. I dare say that the hon. Member for Dundee, East would have received 80 per cent. of the vote in his constituency if only the Labour candidate had been allowed to stand; but that hardly amounts to democracy.
The reason why Cuba's economy is on the edge of collapse has less to do with the American embargo and much more to do with the fact that the former Soviet Union has turned off the subsidies and that Cuba is still trying to run its economy along centralised state-run communist lines. That is why the people of that unhappy island are suffering.

Mr. Corbyn: Should not the Minister concede that the United States blockade of Cuba from 1959 onwards, and the diplomatic and financial pressure that it used on the whole of Latin America, prevented Cuba from selling its produce—sugar, fruit or anything else—in the region? The

only area with which it could trade was the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Is it not time for the United States to grow up, withdraw the blockade and permit the Cuban people to have medicines and food and to be able to sell their goods in the rest of Latin America, as they wish to do?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sure that the United States would be willing to review its embargo if Cuba improved its deplorable human rights record and held free and fair elections.
The crucial thing about the rest of Latin America, however, is that those countries are now governed by constitutional means, by civilians, and from that fact all other reforms can flow. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham reminded us, there have been political crises in south America recently—in Brazil, Venezuela and Guatemala—but the significant and new fact is that they have all been dealt with constitutionally and not by military intervention.
I emphasise that we take seriously the question of human rights, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I disagree with the rest of the latter's old-fashioned sub-Marxist analysis of political developments in Latin America, but I do not dismiss his concerns about human rights.
Violence, including political violence, is still too common in some of those countries. Some of it is drug-related, some perpetrated by guerrillas or paramilitary groups and, regrettably, in some cases the security forces are implicated. But there is a new determination to bring those responsible to justice. That is true of the President of Colombia, who is visiting this country as our guest at the moment. Colombia is still a violent country with a weak judicial system, but I applaud the progress that is being made by the President and the Colombian Government to counter the drug menace and to bring a number of guerrilla groups back into civilian life.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend referred to the weak judicial system in Colombia. It is worth bearing in mind that the system may be weak because murder threats are made against the judges, magistrates and their families. Our country has supported the Colombian judicial system by providing technical expertise and the like.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I certainly accept that we must recognise the difficulties of enforcing laws in a country where intimidation is rife.
Another new feature is that Latin American countries are pursuing the policies of the open market and encouraging international trade and investment. No longer do they seek state-owned, state-run solutions to all those problems. So in many ways, the government and administration of those countries are improving, and have improved out of all recognition during the past decade or more.
Serious problems remain. I have mentioned human rights. I also endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda about the drugs problem, which is serious and must be dealt with. We are playing our part. Last year, the Prime Minister visited Colombia and the Home Secretary visited Colombia, Peru and Venezuela to assess the drug situation and see what we can do to help.
Another encouraging feature that has been mentioned is that those countries now seek to play a responsible role


on the wider world scene. The hon. Member for Islington, North was rather dismissive about the help given by Argentina during the Gulf war, but Conservative Members welcome the fact that those democratic countries are now willing to make their own contribution to United Nations peacekeeping efforts throughout the world. We wish to encourage them to do so.
I shall now say a little more about this country's relations with Latin America. Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the visits—at a political level and to assist in bilateral trade—of Latin American statesmen to this country and of our Ministers to that continent. I mentioned the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Colombia and Brazil last year. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went to Mexico in 1992. and more recently went to Argentina and Chile. I have already spoken about the Home Secretary's visits in connection with the drugs menace.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade recently visited Mexico and Argentina, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently returned from a successful trade promotion visit to Mexico and Chile. I hope to visit the region during the recess, and I shall make a particular point of visiting Brazil. I know that that will please my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham.
I welcome visits to this country. The President of Uruguay came to London last month as a guest of the Government, and President Gaviria of Colombia is here at the moment.
I cannot miss the opportunity in a debate about Latin America to refer to Argentina. It is more than three years since we restored diplomatic relations with that country, and we attach a high priority to returning to as near a full and normal relationship as possible. There are deep and historic links between the two countries that should draw us together, but in discussing political links and developing trade, we must never forget the Falklands aspect. Diplomatic relations were restored only on the basis that we leave the sovereignty issue to one side while discussing other practical matters.
I regret that the Government of Argentina continue to press their claim. President Menem, who has in many ways done much for Argentina, nevertheless repeatedly asserts that the Falklands will be Argentinian by the year 2000. i reject that, as will every hon. Member. We have no doubts whatever about our sovereignty over the islands. I hope that the Government of Argentina will reconsider their continuing claim.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood rightly praised Canning house. In its 50th anniversary year, I am also pleased to pay tribute to the work of Canning house. It was founded during the second world war and was a visionary undertaking at that time. It has become a crossroads and a meeting place in London for Latin American presidents, Ministers, academics, business men and, of course, parliamentary colleagues.
Visiting presidents from Uruguay and now Colombia always make a point of meeting at Canning house. Its

reputation remains high because of the quality of its staff and the way in which it has always been led. It makes a vital contribution to British-Latin American relations. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said about his perception of the need for continuing financial support. I hope that all hon. Members will continue to avail themselves of its facilities, and that they will join me in wishing Canning house success during the next 50 years.
Several hon. Members mentioned trade with Latin America. It is too low. We want to increase our exports, and I am glad that last year we achieved a 20 per cent. increase. In 1992, exports to Latin America were worth some £1·3 billion. I expect that trend to continue in view of our continuing efforts.
Some hon. Members emphasised the need for Export Credits Guarantee Department cover. That is under constant review, but it has not been available in a number of countries for some years because of previous defaults on debt. We want to resume cover as soon as possible. Cover in Argentina resumed in June and in Paraguay it resumed in July. I hope that that list will be extended as economic reforms, open markets and a liberal trading system take hold in other countries as well.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gives a great deal of emphasis to trade with Latin America. A number of export promoters have been appointed, and we have two business-led trade facilitation groups, one for Colombia and one for Mexico. The Government's export services have produced a marketing plan for Latin America, concentrating initially on the top six countries.
Aid is also important. In 1990, we announced that we would double the aid programme, though admittedly from a low base. It is focused primarily on technical co-operation, training, health programmes and the importance of encouraging management of sustainable natural resources.
I must emphasise that, although aid is important, the resources released by freer trade are much more important in the long term. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood criticised the CAP. Even so—and despite our continuing efforts to reform the CAP—it is worth noting that 65 per cent. of Latin American exports to Europe enter the Community duty free. We are in the vanguard of member states pressing for a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round. If we can achieve success in global free trade, it will release far greater resources than any conceivable aid programme.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Our relations with Latin America are enormously assisted by the presence in the House of a group of hon. Members with knowledge, expertise and interest in that region. If any hon. Members will be visiting that region during the summer recess, they should let the Foreign Office know, and we will endeavour to give them all the assistance and briefing that may be required.

Orders of the Day — Yugoslavia

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am heartened by the number of hon. Members who are present and who, presumably, hope to speak during the debate. It is testimony to the intense and continuing dismay felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House at the degeneration of the position in Bosnia, and the continuing lack of international will to do anything about it.
The Minister often claims that there is no political or domestic will in the House or the country. I genuinely think that he is utterly wrong to make that claim. I think that there is a huge groundswell of opinion among ordinary people in the country that the United Kingdom should be doing much more than it has over the past two years. That opinion is widely reflected in many newspapers—certainly among the journalists reporting from Bosnia—and it is widely felt in the House. I have no doubt that the Government could secure a broad consensus in favour of a stronger stand, if they wished to take that initiative.
A number of my colleagues have been most eloquent on this subject for what seems to be a depressingly long time, notably the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I first spoke in the House on this subject as long ago as 13 November 1991, when Dubrovnik and Vukovar were being bombarded and flattened. I called then for military measures to be taken to halt Serbian aggression, but unfortunately, as we all know, nothing was done. Resolutions aplenty were passed but never implemented, or never implemented with sufficient force. The aggression continued in Croatia, as it then was, intensified and inevitably spread into Bosnia, with all the horror that we now know.
I went to the Library to see how many resolutions have been passed. I was given the weighty collection of paper that I have with me—I might almost say, "I have in my hand a piece of paper." The collection happens to be the 41 resolutions that have been passed during the past 23 months. They have been passed but never fully implemented and, in essence, have changed nothing in former Yugoslavia.
I shall emphasise that point by referring to one of the 41 resolutions. It was passed on 6 May this year and concerned safe areas. In the resolution, the UN declared that Sarajevo, the capital city of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and other threatened areas—in particular the towns of Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde, Bihac and Srebrenica—should be treated as safe areas by all parties concerned, and should be free from armed attacks and from any other hostile acts.
The resolution went on to demand the immediate cessation of armed attacks and any hostile act against the safe areas and demanded free and unimpeded access to all the safe areas in the republic of Bosnia. Since that resolution was passed, 400 people have been killed and 2,500 wounded in Sarajevo alone, one of the supposed safe areas.
The Minister should reflect seriously on the long-term consequences of the debasement of the prestige of the UN, on the currency of international diplomacy and on the prestige of the west— particularly the liberal democracies—by the continued and constant failure to implement and enforce the resolutions the UN has passed.
The Minister has chastised hon. Members for raising inflated expectations of what can be done in former

Yugoslavia. The Government, however, have put their signatures to all the resolutions. They have helped to draft all the resolutions, including the resolution on safe areas. The Government have sadly failed to do anything to implement their declarations.
The message that I hope will come out of tonight's debate is that, despite the delay and despite the pattern of appeasement, it is not too late. Europe can still rediscover its will and its conscience. By taking action now, we can still turn back the tide of nationalism and neo-fascism that is welling up in the Balkans and which threatens to spread across central and eastern Europe.
The Government often give the impression that they are playing for time. They give the impression that, if they can stretch out the endless series of resolutions and play out the endless sequence of conferences and negotiations for long enough, the public will eventually become disinterested. Those of us in the House and elsewhere who want to see stronger action taken will also become disheartened and will accept or reconcile ourselves to what Ministers like to call "realities on the ground." That is not what is happening, however. As Sarajevo has teetered on the brink of collapse, the calls for stronger action have become louder and more numerous.
On Friday more than 80 American congressmen signed an open letter to President Clinton calling for a 72-hour ultimatum to lift the siege of Sarajevo and the other besieged towns, and advocated the use of force if it was not complied with. General Morillon, released finally from the leash of his political masters, has called for military action and air strikes to lift the siege on Sarajevo. He made it plain that in his view that was feasible.
Last week several of us listened upstairs in a Committee room to Larry Hollingsworth, the United Nations special representative for humanitarian aid in Bosnia. He stated his view that we should have been firm with the Serbs from the outset of the delivery of humanitarian aid and that if we had been firm and decided that aid should be delivered on our terms without negotiating and compromising with the Serbs, the aid could have been much more effectively delivered. He added that it was time to stop bargaining and negotiating with the Serbs and time to start using force to deliver that aid.
Bit by bit, the Government's claims that all the expert advice from humanitarian workers, the military and the diplomatic corps is against intervention are being shown to be grossly and gravely misleading. A group of us visited the NATO headquarters recently. We left there with the clear impression that the most senior officials in NATO were satisfied that intervention was not only feasible and advisable but urgently required. We received a clear impression that there was intense frustration at the failure at the political level to take the steps necessary to resolve the crisis.
When Ministers search for an excuse for nonintervention, they often say that there is a civil war in former Yugoslavia and Bosnia and that we cannot become involved in a civil war. Of course, communities and civilians are caught up in the war. In that sense, it is civil. Indeed, the main brunt is being borne by the civilian population as it is deliberately targeted and terrorised by Serbian and other forces. However, it is not a civil war in the sense that its primary source and inspiration is internal and domestic—absolutely not.
It is contradictory for the Government to continue to trot out that claim as an excuse for their lack of action.


Last December, at the summit of the European Council in Edinburgh, it was plainly stated by the Heads of State who gathered there that, although there were civil aspects to what was happening in former Yugoslavia, the primary responsibility lay with the Serbian Government in Belgrade. They stated that plainly in the communiqué from the European Council, in which they made a declaration on former Yugoslavia. That was in December last year. Paragraph 2 of the communiqué reads:
The primary responsibility for the conflict, and its brutality, lies with the present leadership of Serbia and of the Bosnian Serbs …The Serbian authorities in Belgrade bear an equal responsibility for fomenting the conflict.
So the argument that it is a civil war in which we cannot intervene simply cannot be used with consistency by the Minister. He can search and grope for that excuse in desperation, but he cannot use it consistently because it has been rejected by the European Council.
Nor can the war be confined to a particular local area or its consequences restricted to the Balkans—another frequent excuse for inaction. Sometimes it seems that it is Government strategy to cordon off the war in Bosnia and to allow it to burn itself out. I firmly believe now, just as I did in November 1991, that that is an utterly false hope. The Bosnians will not stop fighting. In the short term, they may be forced to accept some kind of ethnically based settlement—but that will not last.
A radicalised and embittered rump state in Bosnia will not accept the so-called reality on the ground, any more than the Palestinians have accepted the so-called reality in the middle east since the last war. The Croats will not accept either the effect of annexation of one third of their territory. The recovery of what are viewed as occupied lands will remain the overriding goal of future Croatian policy and of any rump state created in Bosnia.
It is not just the Bosnians and Croats who will not desist in the long term. The more that sanctions threaten economic collapse in Serbia, the more that President Milosevic will be compelled to continue his policy of ethnic cleansing and territorial consolidation. Carving out a greater Serbia is about the only means of economic growth and the only source of political credibility and legitimacy available to Milosevic's regime.
There can be no doubt that when the fighting in Bosnia subsides, Kosovo will be next. As Serbian policy there gradually escalates from intimidation to terror and to ethnic cleansing eventually, at what point will we draw the line—or will we simply wait for a general Balkans war?
I cannot emphasise too strongly that the belief that a carve-up of Bosnia into territorial spheres of influence between Tudman's Croatia and the Serbia of Milosevic and Arkan, with a small rump Muslim statelet crushed between, is a recipe for any kind of stability and long-term settlement in the Balkans is dangerous nonsense and a delusion.
Today's issues of The Independent has an article explaining what needs to be done now. The immediate need is to lift the sieges of safe areas. The wider political objective must he to restore a plural, intercommunal, political and civil society in the whole of Bosnia—if necessary, in the way that the allies reconstructed German society after the second world war.
Two measures are necessary to enable that wider political role to be achieved efficiently. The United Nations must declare the whole of Bosnia as being under its protection. That would be welcomed not just by the

Bosnian Government, who have already suggested that possibility, and by the population of that country, but by the majority of the people of Croatia and by many in Serbia as well. The UN must make it absolutely clear that its purpose is to guarantee the civil and social rights of all the communities equally within Bosnia under an impartial UN-administered interim Government.
The second measure necessary to ensure the efficient achievement of the wider political objective is for the UN to delegate to NATO, and primarily to its European members, the military task of lifting the sieges and of disarming the warring forces within Bosnia.
The maximum tactical and strategic freedom should be allowed to NATO forces to fulfil those missions. Anything short of that formula will make the overall task that much more difficult. For example, to restrict the political objective simply to protecting the safe areas is a recipe for a second Gaza and an endless stalemate, while inhibiting the tactical freedom of NATO in its ability to respond to events on the ground will mean having to deploy many more soldiers to accomplish the same task.
The figure of 70,000 to 80,000 troops to implement the Vance-Owen plan, for example, was a deliberate overestimate by NATO commanders, intended to compensate for the variable quality of UN troops, their lack of common training and the lack of an efficient command and control centre at the United Nations. Delegation to NATO would dramatically reduce the number of troops required and increase the efficiency of the operation. That is not to criticise the United Nations, or those involved in trying to implement UN peacekeeping missions. It is not their fault that the member Governments of the United Nations hve not supplied the resources and the wherewithal to allow the UN to carry out these missions effectively and properly.

Ms Clare Short: Does my hon. Friend agree that when we visited NATO we were told that all it took to enforce the safe areas strategy was the commitment of 8,000 troops and a change in the rules of engagement? Does he also agree that we were told that NATO had done the work and felt that this was a European responsibility and that European troops, at that very small level, should be committed? Furthermore, does my hon. Friend agree that we were told that, although Bangladesh and Pakistan had committed troops, Europe had not committed enough troops for the strategy to be implemented? Does not all that symbolise a lack of political will?

Mr. Macdonald: It represents an appalling abdication of the responsibility of European Governments, as my hon. Friend points out, that they have absolutely failed to fulfil the request for the minimum number of troops required to enforce the safe areas policy.
Of the 23 observers or monitors that the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe said that it would be putting into Kosovo to monitor the situation there, I understand that only eight or nine have been put in place and that some of them are Americans, not Europeans. The Serbian authorities are making difficulties and are refusing to co-operate with European Governments in Kosovo over the monitoring of the situation there.
The sad fact is that the entire United Nations peacekeeping budget for 1992, covering its tasks in the Balkans, Cambodia, Angola and elsewhere, was less than


the combined budgets of the New York city fire and police departments for the same year. It is no wonder, therefore, that problems have arisen in Somalia and difficulties in Bosnia. The lesson is that the onus is all the greater upon the Governments of Europe and the Governments who comprise NATO to take a lead.
There are now 4 million people who depend upon humanitarian aid in Europe, 3·5 million of whom are still in the Balkans. Half a million of them are now outside the Balkans. Of those 500,000, 300,000 are in Germay, 80,000 in Switzerland, 73,000 in Austria and 40,000 in Hungary. In Britain, there are only 4,424. We do not need to look much further for an explanation of the British Government's complacency regarding the position in the former Yugoslavia. They have repeatedly insisted that British interests are not directly involved. There is no doubt that we should not be adopting that attitude if we, like Germany, had not 4,000 but 300,000 refugees living among us.
It is deeply ironic that a Government who have spent more than a year of parliamentary time on ensuring the ratification of the treaty of European union still, apparently, have no idea, no concept, of the significance of that to which they spent a year trying to persuade us to put our signature. The treaty of European union should at least signify or recognise the existence of a new Europe: a Europe without barriers and of common citizens. It should recognise a Europe in which Britain is no longer an island apart and a Europe in which Germany's refugee problem is also our refugee problem.
Right up to 1940, British Governments considered the fate of the Low countries of the Netherlands and Belgium as being of vital national interest to Great Britain. The trouble with the Foreign Office is that it still thinks that way. It has still to adjust to the new Europe which was created after 1945. The Balkans are to the European Community today what the Low countries were to British Governments in the past—an area of vital and immediate interest and importance on which British Governments simply cannot turn their backs.
Sadly, we can have no great expectation that action will follow this debate. Most of us in the Chamber today are just junior Back Benchers and we are ranged against a Government who claim to have the weight of diplomatic and military opinion on their side—and they claim that falsely, I would add, for the reasons that we have been given by the Government.
We will not accept what the Government try to tell us is now inevitable. We will not accept the extinction of a democracy and multi-cultural civilisation in Bosnia. We will never accept a settlement that is based on the principle of apartheid in the middle of Europe.
The American Secretary of State, Warren Christopher. has described Bosnia as a problem from hell. He is wrong. Bosnia is a problem not from hell but straight from the pages of European history. The way to solve the problem can also be found in the history books. The lesson to be learnt from the history books is something that we should all have learnt 50 years ago: one cannot pacify aggression by appeasement. The only way to stop aggression is to stand up to it.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) who made an excellent speech and who outlined with controlled passion and lucidity the situation that we are debating this evening. I simply regret the fact that the Chamber is so empty even though, for a Consolidated Fund debate, I acknowledge that it is quite full.
The contrast between last Thursday and Friday and tonight is stark, yet the relative importance of the subject discussed, if we think about it for a moment, is also in stark contrast. What we are discussing this evening is, in its far-reaching consequences as well as in respect of its own intrinsic importance, a far graver situation than that which exercised us last week.
I have been a Member of the House for 23 years. During that time, I have felt, as every hon. Member feels from time to time, frustrated, elated and bored. However, until this past year, I have never felt deeply ashamed. I do feel ashamed about what has happened in the Balkans and about the lack of will and resolution displayed, particularly by the European powers, in the face of this catalogue of misery, crime and depravity. Two hundred thousand fellow Europeans have been slaughtered in Bosnia in the past 16 months, about 40,000 women have been raped, about 750,000 people have been wounded, many of them children and many of them badly mutilated, and 2 million of our fellow Europeans have been displaced —uprooted from their homes. The monuments and buildings which symbolised their culture have been wantonly destroyed or vandalised.
That is an appalling catalogue of desecration which impoverishes and shames us all that it should have happened. That it should have happened as the first great repercussion of the end of the cold war makes it even more shaming and shameful.
For a long time, the hon. Member for Western Isles and I have been involved in seeking to draw attention to those problems and to urge action. He and I were among those who, when Dubrovnik, a world heritage site, was being shelled—that alone was a reason for the rest of the world to take an interest—urged that a naval patrol and an air patrol should be put in place. I firmly believe, although I could never prove it nor could anyone disprove it, that had resolute action been taken then, we would probably not be having this debate tonight and many thousands of people would still be living in Bosnia in peace, accord and amity. as they had lived for generations.
I recently stayed with some friends. The wife was a Serb—from Mostar—and she said to me that in her childhood there was no more peaceful society. People got on well together, they lived side by side, they enjoyed each other's company, they respected each other's cultures, and they had a common culture, too. The word "multi-ethnic" is often tossed around without much thought or regard, but Sarajevo was a multi-ethnic city. Its mosques were among its most glorious monuments, but its churches also were revered and respected by people of all persuasions and name, yet in the past 16 months we have seen a city and a country destroyed.
What makes it so appalling is that Britain recognised that country as an independent nation. Last April. about 65 nations recognised Bosnia as an independent nation. It was given and still has a seat in the United Nations. That


country was not a Muslim country but one with a united presidency—Muslim, Croat and Serb—which it still has, and with a Government who reflected those three cultures and symbolised the one that Bosnia was. We recognised it and we have stood by while it was being destroyed.
Of course, I yield to no one in my admiration for the bravery and skill of British troops. I do not gainsay for a minute the value of the humanitarian aid and the enormous courage that has been needed to take that aid to people, nor do I deny that many tens of thousands of people would have died of starvation and malnutrition had it not been for the aid that was taken to them, but we must not shelter behind praise for the troops because there has been a political vacuum.
I do not say these things easily. I have a high regard for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who will reply to the debate. I kept him up in the small hours in December 1991 during the Consolidated Fund debate, when we first debated the former Yugoslavia. I called for action at the time when Dubrovnik and Vukovar were attacked.
The west, collectively, has failed, as have the institutions that we created to guarantee the world order. What has happened in the former Yugoslavia is an indictment of the United Nations, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and every other institution to which we have all paid, from time to time, enthusiastic lip service. Above all, it is an indictment of the failure of NATO and the European Community to respond.
There is no point in saying that the British public did not want action to be taken. What sort of leadership is that? "Those are the people, I will follow them because I am their leader." If the Prime Minister had come to the House and said that a fundamental British and European interest was involved and that it was necessary to take certain action, what would have been the response? I suggest that it would not have been dissimilar from the response at the time of the Falklands war or the Gulf war. British people are not slow to recognise national and international interests.
In this country and other European nations there has been a craven refusal to measure up to the enormity of the challenge. I am ashamed.

Ms Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis that this is a European failure, but does he agree that two nations, Britain and France, take supreme responsibility? They are the two European members of the United Nations Security Council and they have the armed forces capable of taking action. Those countries, of all countries, are the most guilty. The evidence of opinion polls reveals that, way back from the time when Lady Thatcher first spoke about the need for action, the majority of British people have called for action.

Mr. Cormack: The cannon should be pointed at Britain and France, and at Germany, too, because its precipitate action in another context is also responsible for the failure.

Mr. David Howell: It is much more responsible.

Mr. Cormack: I note what my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs

says. Be that as it may, at no time, either individually or collectively, did we convince the Serbs that we were prepared to take action.
I have talked to soldiers, diplomats and journalists. I do not want to break confidences or embarrass people, but suffice it to say that I am not persuaded—how shall I word this carefully—that what has been said in the House entirely reflects the advice that I am told has been given at a lower level. Perhaps that advice has not permeated to the top and, if that is the case, there is something wrong with the system. There is an appreciation among diplomats and those responsible in NATO and elsewhere that there is something that should and could be done.
Nobody in the House who has taken close interest in this subject has, in irresponsible and gung-ho fashion., recommended vast ground troop involvement.
We should pay tribute to the bravery of the journalists in Bosnia, among whom Martin Bell is perhaps the most outstanding. He said at a meeting in the House a couple of weeks ago that he was convinced that the Serb gun positions could easily have been taken out. They were not as mobile as some would have had us believe. If just a quarter of the resolve to teach Saddam Hussein a lesson had been applied to Bosnia, we would have turned the Serbs back. The technique of precision bombing is not restricted to one part of the world.
When we say these things we are told that there would be civilian casualties, but have there not already been tens of thousands of those? We are told that some soldiers would be killed, possibly British ones among them. I am reminded of the visit that I paid in April to the young men of the Staffordshire regiment who were celebrating their reprieve. They asked the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and me, "Why do you think we joined the Army? What is the Army for? Of course we have to go into action sometimes."
Had there been any resolve or determination the Serbs would have backed down. As Martin Bell reminded us, Karadzic recently signed the Vance-Owen plan because he thought that at long last the west would take action. When it became apparent that we would not, he reneged.
So much for the sorry history of the conflict. What of the future? If the end of this terrible episode is the extinction of a sovereign nation from the map of Europe, that will be a dire portent for the next century. If the message goes out that, having recognised a state, we were neither prepared to defend it nor to give it the means to defend itself so that it vanished in carnage from the map of Europe, that message will be heard in the former Soviet Union.
I do not want to be told that there are many other conflicts in other parts of the world. We do not refuse to help our neighbour just because we cannot help someone who may be in even worse trouble in a far-flung land. And we are talking about the centre of our continent; our neighbours.
If we finally fail—we have failed badly enough hitherto —and this nation disappears, that will be a most damning indictment. Today I was glad to see that The Independentdevoted the whole of its front page to a call to save Sarajevo. Colleagues may have seen and read it. I am persuaded by those to whom I have talked in the military and elsewhere that even at this late stage it would be possible to save Sarajevo, that great European city—to employ black humour at its most grotesque—whose citizens have been reduced to conditions worse than those


suffered by people in the middle ages. Sarajevo is still there; it has not fallen. It need not fall and, if we are to rescue any vestige of honour from this appalling catastrophe, it must not fall. Even now, it would be possible to halt the Serb aggression by delivering an ultimatum, as suggested by the 80 congressmen to whom the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) referred.
Let us not balk at placing the responsibility where it belongs most—with the Serbs. In recent months, awful things have been done by all the communities involved, but, as was said at Edinburgh where we also held a Bosnian summit, which the hon. Gentleman and I attended—not that it did much good—the prime responsibility lay with the Serbs. They started it and they fuelled it from Belgrade, literally and metaphorically. Although we criticise some of what Croatia has done, we should not forget that, in defiance of some of those 41 United Nations resolutions, vast tracts of Croatia are still occupied by the Serbs. A couple of weeks ago, a senior diplomat said that, if we started by enforcing those resolutions, in Croatia, we would send out the right signal.
We cannot allow the situation to continue. If we do, it will not end there. Sooner or later we shall be sucked in anyhow. Will the Serbs end with Bosnia? No. Will they end with Kosovo? No. Unless this rampant belligerent aggression is halted, and unless the Serbs who believe in democracy—many do—are given a lifeline, we shall have in the Balkans the smouldering beginnings of a war which could become a conflagration at any time and could involve not only Bulgaria and Albania but Greece and Turkey. Two NATO nations could be fighting each other.
Let us also consider the signals that we are sending to the Muslim world. Some in the Muslim world are already beginning to show their disfavour in quiet ways. Do we want to enter the next century not only in a Europe in which a cancer has taken hold but in a Europe in which we are regarded as enemies by those in the middle east? Do we want to enter the next century with a Europe which, if it is not a cohesive continent, will not be in a strong position when the balance of power inevitably moves from the Atlantic to the Pacific? This debate covers all those problems.
You, Madam Speaker, have done the House a service in allowing three hours for this debate. The hon. Member for Western Isles has done us a service in choosing the subject matter. A number of us did likewise and we are grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for recognising its importance. I wish, however, that the debate could have been awarded a full day and a full House because if, when we return in October, Sarajevo has fallen and Bosnia is no more, we shall have written one of the most appalling chapters in European history and we shall reap the consequences. What is worse, our children and our grandchildren will do so, too.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) ended his excellent speech by saying that he wished that this debate was not being held with such a limited number of hon. Members here, although among those present are many, like him, who have been committed to the issue for

a long time. He thought that it would perhaps have made a difference. Sadly, I do not think that it would. Like the hon. Gentleman, I read the front page of The Independent this morning. It caused me to look back at my papers and read:
In Sarajevo, people are in their cellars without electricity, water or food. If you have children, think what that would be like. Soon, those who have escaped the shells will starve. Only force can be understood, and force should be used, and we should also give air cover for food and medical supplies. We can, of course, also do nothing and just let people die.
That was a broadcast that I did on Channel 4 on 10 June 1992—a year ago. I mention that not to say, "Look how clever I was saying that on 10 June 1992", but to say to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South that I am afraid that we have been looking at the present situation for a very long time. The situation has simply become worse, but intrinsically it has been very bad for a long time.
I agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) about NATO. I remember visiting the headquarters of Action Rapide in Paris about a year and a half ago. During the briefing, the general was asked specifically what he thought about the military implications of lifting the Beige of Sarajevo and he more or less said,"If you give me proper notice and 36 hours, I will do it". I do not think that the head of Action Rapide was given to exaggeration. It was possible; what was lacking, as has been repeated several times, was the will.
Two or three nights ago, a scrap of news on the television showed a man sitting behind an enormous gun, which appeared to have an enormous number of shells. He was just pumping them out into the air towards Sarajevo —to whatever it may have hit. We allow that to happen and we say that we cannot take any risks. Without some military action from the west, Sarajevo will ultimately fall and all over Bosnia there will he some sort of Srebrenica defeat. I am not looking for a military solution—none of us is—but without the threat and almost certainly the use of some military force, and with a threat of more, negotiation will not succeed. That is essentially what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South said.
The hon. Members for Staffordshire, South and for Western Isles concentrated on Sarajevo and on the particular problems of Bosnia. Since many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall spend a little time on other related questions in the former Yugoslavia.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South was right to say that the Croats have problems with the occupied areas in Croatia, but what they are doing at Mostar is indefensible. They are clearing out all areas on one side of the river, preparatory to doing it on the other, with a view to making it the capital of Croatian Bosnia. I gather that there are between 6,000 and 8,000 Muslim men in camps on the edge of Mostar with a view to being transported goodness knows where.
I should like the Minister to say what action the Government have taken with the Croatian Government. He may find it difficult to answer all the questions, so I hope, therefore, that he will answer in writing. I ask questions only because I want to know the answers: that is what these debates are supposed to be for.
There is no doubt that economic sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro have been a considerable success. One needs only to look at the position of the dinar to realise that the collapse of the currency is nigh. I readily accept that it is an exceedingly difficult issue, and I am not being critical.
The question is, what are we trying to do with sanctions? Presumably, we are trying to put maximum pressure on Milosevic so that he, in turn, will do the same to Karadzic and General Mladic. That is the straightforward position. I understand that, when Lord Owen was here, he was saying sotto voce—rumour goes around in the House—that Milosevic was being quite co-operative, and we should be thinking in terms of progressively reducing sanctions. I would not wish to do that without four things —first, an agreement in Bosnia; secondly, an agreement in Kosovo; thirdly, an agreement in Vojvodina, which we must not foget, as it has a substantial Hungarian population; lastly, we have to look at somehow disarming Serbia. It is an enormous military power squatting in the region.
We have to face the fact that some in the House will say that sanctions are bad. I listened to the views put by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about Iraq. They say that our sanctions there are punishing women and children and making the population poor. If that argument can be applied to Iraq, it can easily be applied to the former Yugoslavia. That is a difficulty which all of us who think that sanctions are an effective and relatively peaceful way to bring pressure to bear have to face up to.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is not the problem with sanctions that they are put forward as an alternative to engaging in military action? The hon. Gentleman has already spoken of the devastating economic effects; sanctions work in Kosovo as well and cannot be doing anything to help the situation there.

Sir Russell Johnston: Supposing I accept everything that the hon. Gentleman says, what else can one do? There is only the military action that we have been talking about, but there is a lack of will to do that.
Owen is wrong on Kosovo. I heard him say in the plenary session of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg that he thought that the people of Kosovo ought to accept that they are part of Serbia, and that should be the end of the matter. I understand that he has said that elsewhere as well. However, that cannot be the end of the matter.
There is a population of 1·75 million, which is relatively homogenously dispersed in a compact geographical area, 90 per cent. of which is Albanian. It is all very well saying that there was a great battle in 1300-odd against the Turks which was lost and the area is now part of the soul of Serbia. I understand that and I understand nationalist feelings, but, in the 20th century verging on the 21st century, we cannot listen to such an argument.
We must look at the disarmament of Serbia—I have mentioned Vojvodena. That is a major issue, to which sufficient attention has not been devoted. Even if we got peace in Bosnia and an agreement in the areas that I mentioned, we would still be left with an embittered population. Milosevic could still be in charge, and we know what he did with the opposition within Serbia. If he has to hand powerful military forces, he may well use them.
I have two short specific questions that have not yet been properly mentioned. If the Minister has a proper opportunity to reply, I hope that he will. First, what is going on with the war crimes tribunal which was proposed in the United Nations? What has happened about the inquiry into the rapes which was instituted following the

summit in Edinburgh with Dame Anne Warburton, who produced a report? What has been the follow through to that and how does it relate to the war crimes issue?
Secondly, the economic situation in Macedonia for a period was awful, because she was obeying sanctions and there was a problem with Greece. Of course, Macedonia has no forces of her own, but I understand that there are some American forces there. What is the up-to-date position about Macedonia? I think that the hon. Member for Western Isles spoke about CSCE monitors in Kosovo. I think that they have all been cleared out. Did not the Yugoslavs say that, because they had been put out of the CSCE, all other CSCE monitors were to be put out?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Gentleman tempts me to interbene. The position is unsatisfactory. The Government of Servia have stated that the mandate of the CSCE to keep the monitors in Kosovo has been withdrawn. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. Some of the monitors are still there, because some are on leave and have not had their visas renewed. We are seeking to persuade the Government of Serbia to agree to a renewal of the mandate.

Sir Russell Johnston: I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention. It clarifies the position which, as he says, is highly unsatisfactory. We need a firmer basis.
I agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South that this has been a test of European will and our humanity. We have shown some humanity: our troops and French troops have done enormous good. General Morillon and people of other nationalities have done well within the narrow confines of the United Nations mandates under which they had to operate. The lack of will and the absence of any capacity to take risks have been saddest. Neil Ascherson who writes so well in The Independent on Sunday described it some months ago as
a policy of non-intervention disguised as humanitarianism.
So far, the outcome has been to our shame, but, as the hon. Member for Western Isles said, it is not too late; it is never too late. If we begin by lifting the siege of Sarajevo, all things can become different.

Mr. David Howell: The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has rendered the House a service by introducing this debate at this late stage just before the recess. The situation will grow much grimmer and much worse, and before we sit here again many more terrible and dangerous things will happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has also done the House a service by articulating his views with great eloquence.
I do not totally agree with the analysis or the conclusions of hon. Members who have spoken. The issue has dark and expanding consequences for us all. That cannot be in doubt for a moment, although some people think that it can all be shut away in a box and put aside as it is happening in far away countries of which we need know nothing, and that it has nothing to do with us.
I join with as much feeling as I can muster those who praise the humanitarian work of the relief workers, the non-governmental organisations, the UNHCR and our troops who are protecting those relief workers. They are offering a superb and abnormal degree of protection. No words are adequate to praise what they are doing, and I


hope and pray that they will not be forced to withdraw because conditions have become impossible. That threat is always present, but we have the assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that if the risks become too great or the mission impossible our troops will be rapidly withdrawn. I hope that that will not happen.
The humanitarian operation is right. The conscience of the world is rightly outraged by the horrific medieval atrocities that this terrible saga has revealed. It would be impossible, uncivilised and equally barbaric for us to stand back and say that we can do nothing. It would be impossible for us to say, "Leave them to fight it out, starve and die." My right hon. and hon. Friends have acted positively and constructively throughout in recognising that something must be done.
On the politico-diplomatic side, however, it is far less easy to see the positive aspects—the good that has been done by the policy-making efforts of the European powers. It may be said that we are now in such a miserable situation, with Sarajevo about to die, that to look back is to rake over the ashes and to cry over spilt milk; but I do not think that that is entirely right. Unless we can trace the way in which we got into this quagmire with more precision than we sometimes use in the emotion of the moment, we shall not find a way out of it, or guard against falling into equal chaos in the next crisis.
That applies particularly to Macedonia. People remember the parts of history that they choose to remember, but it is worth remembering that Macedonia is behind the present circumstances, which began to unfold when the Turks withdrew about 120 years ago. The motives born of that moment still drive the present horror. In the 1870s, Macedonia was the boiling point—the potential Bosnia, or killing field—that led to the Balkan crisis of the time. It is waiting to fulfil the same role, and it will do so unless we learn our lesson and do not follow the same miserable path.
Why is the world so critical of what has happened on the diplomatic front? The source of the beginning of failure is clear. At the outset, when it became clear that the old federation was going to break down in the familiar slaughter and the ancient ethnic quarrels would all be raised again, there was a choice for the international community. It was between saying, "We will not intervene in military or political terms; we will help relief workers, and intervene in a humanitarian context, but we will not intervene in a decisive policy way", and saying, "We will now embark on this operation, fully aware that one thing can lead to another; fully aware that we may have to intervene with increasing decisiveness, commitment and force. We are ready to do that, so that, from the outset, our threats will carry credible weight: they will have behind them the threat of full intervention".
The international community's first act was to step aside from that choice. It did not follow either of those routes, although either one of them might have led to greater coherence and less bloodshed; I do not say that either could have prevented what has occurred. Instead, the international community chose the option of uncertain, wavering half-intervention, adopting a number of dangerous options, each of which has made the horrors worse and prolonged miseries, dangers and, probably, the

incidence of death. I believe that, looking back; some commentators, including hon. Members, think the same, looking forward.
First, we said that we would not intervene militarily but we had some diplomatic solutions to the problem. That was a dangerous first step. Again, a study of history would have shown—here I disagree with some hon. Members who have spoken—that no outside influence could ever have stopped the wish of the Serbs to regain their lands, after all those hundreds of years of being suppressed by Turkish and Ottoman rule. Any idea that that could have been stopped by plans, arrangements or diplomatic solutions was absurd vanity—unless, as I say, people were prepared to support it with massive military intervention.
The first half-baked semi-intervention, which has done more harm than good, was the attempt to impose diplomatic solutions, or detailed maps, on the unfolding agenda of greater Serbia and the greater Croatia—which were there and remain there—and on the hope and belief, now dashed and destroyed, of the Bosnians, including those sometimes called the Bosnian Muslims—

Mr. Cormack: They are not all Muslims.

Mr. Howell: As my hon. Friend says, they are by no means all Muslims—that they would have a whole area of Bosnia which they could rule.
Once the international community began to say that it did not accept that and had some better ideas, maps, plans and diplomacy, we began, even at that early stage, to fly in the face of, instead of working with, mitigating and redirecting the unfolding reality. We pretended that we did not understand that reality. We did not have the historical insight to see what would happen. That was the first of the fatal interventions. I shall come to the others in a moment.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I listen to the right hon. Gentleman's argument with increasing incredulity. He has made two assertions—one about greater Croatia and the other about greater Serbia. He speaks as if those nations had existed within a known time scale. But then he dismisses Bosnia out of hand. If he looked a little more closely at Balkan history, he would know that Bosnia existed as an independent state 500 years ago. Most of its current borders have been internationally recognised for the past 120 years. If that is the case, why does he go along with the appeasement of Serbia, and to a lesser degree of Croatia, at the expense of Bosnia?

Mr. Howell: That is the danger of mixing analysis of what is happening with what the hon. Gentleman would like to happen. He draws certain lessons from a particular point in history. One could go with a microscope over the history of the area and draw different lessons. We all try to draw the best lessons to see that we do not make mistakes in the future. I am not saying what I want to unfold; I am merely describing what is happening. I am not saying what I wish or plan it. I am not saying what I would impose on the area if I was king of the world. I am merely describing the unfolding reality. When politicians and diplomats plunge into a situation and try to defy it but deny themselves the force, machinery and equipment to do so, they end up in some sticky situations. As my argument unfolds, the hon. Gentleman may understand more what I am trying to say.
The second half-baked intervention was the diplomatic act of recognising Bosnia at the beginning of last year. It


was against the advice of the Badinter commission, which said that Bosnia did not satisfy the conditions for an independent state. It is ironic that Mr. Badinter said that Macedonia qualified and yet we did not recognise Macedonia as a state. Bosnia, which he said did not qualify, has been recognised.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend said that we had not recognised Macedonia. By voting for the admission of Macedonia to the United Nations, we have accorded recognition to Macedonia.

Mr. Howell: We have recognised it now, but all last year, when the Macedonians sought recognition, they were told that they were not on the list because of the Greek problem, with which we are familiar, whereas Bosnia had passed through the hurdle and become a recognised state. Many people said that that act of recognition would lead to more hideous bloodshed. The renewed intensity of the horrors, the adjectiveless killing that took place, and the new and ugly drive of the Serbian Bosnian forces as they moved against the Muslim strongholds was a terrible and predicted sequence. Recognition was not the only reason why the events that followed unfolded, but it was a diplomatic intervention which made the situation worse.
The third intervention was the decision to continue maintaining the embargo on the movement of arms in a way that discriminated against one of the combatants. Whatever else one says, clearly that was intervention. I must be careful in saying what might be the way forward. Some argue—and we may be close to this—that the answer is not to give more arms to the area to foster more killing but to reduce, if this is realistic, the arms available to the other combatant forces. Others say—as did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the other day—that if we cannot see any other way forward, we may in due course have to consider lifting that arms embargo. There are those in the Washington policy-making machine who think that that point is near.
Whichever way one slices the argument and goes from here, the international community has intervened by holding the situation as it is. Whether one likes it or not, true non-intervention, and true military and political stand-off—and I am totally against humanitarian stand-off, because involvement there is right—would mean a lack of consistent and pursued implementation of the UN resolution that in effect denies the Bosnian Muslims the means to defend themselves.
The big lesson of half-intervention, the implications of which some of us in the Select Committee tried to set out in our recent report on the UN's expanding role, is that when the United Nations or a more regional grouping, such as the European Community, seeks to move into and grasp some horrific situation of conflict, it should first pause and ask itself a basic question.
It should first accept—and this is the theme of the Select Committee's report—that one thing will always lead to another, and that the smallest toe in the water of involvement in intervention is likely to lead to greater things. When it does, all the intervening nations or parties concerned must have the political will, resources and equipment to see the matter through. If they do not, they should not get involved in the first place.
I may be too idealistic, but that seems a necessary line of reasoning and test, to ensure that we do not see again the half-intervention—the realisation that it will lead to

more promises, the raising of high hopes of intervention, backing down, a feeling of betrayal, bitterness, and the increasing sense that the international institutions have lost their authority.
In the Bosnian Muslim case, the disaster is wider—as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South warned. The signal has been sent to the ever-sensitive and rather divided Islamic world that moderate Islamic leaders who believe that co-operation with Europe, the west, the Christians—whatever term one likes to use—is the right way forward in bringing stability to the whole Islamic world, in the middle east, have got it wrong. It will be said, "Look at what these people have done. We put our trust in them, and that trust has been belied, undermined and destroyed."
Extremist, subversive and terrorist Islam—in total contrast to the moderate, wise Islam with which we need to work closely and befriend—has received an almighty boost. There are further sinister developments to come. The idea that the system would settle down under a greater Croatia and Serbia and a crushed Muslim Bosnia and that there would be equilibrium is false. It is more likely that we shall see an increasingly agitated Islamic interest. There has already been an offer of 10,000 Iranian troops to save Sarajevo or to maintain another area, and of Pakistani and Malaysian troops. Other countries have raised the banner of Islamic military intervention. It has not happened yet. I shall be fascinated to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who struggles nobly and with vast skill with these issues, whether that was just a straw-in-the-wind suggestion, or faint bravado, or whether that plan is going forward. Either way, it is exactly what policymakers said at the beginning must not happen.

Mr. Max Madden: Would not the spectre that the right hon. Gentleman raises be laid to rest if Britain, France, Germany and other NATO countries said today, "We are prepared to put in sufficient forces to lift the siege of Sarajevo and to give full protection to the so-called protected areas"?

Mr. Howell: That is a solution one can come to, but I am not sure that I have sufficient confidence to think that it is happening. In the past, there were many suggestions that it might happen but it did not, and that led to an even worse situation. I see no sign that the NATO powers are prepared to act in that way. If they were, it might have a beneficial effect on the Islamic attitude, but at the moment I see no sign of it.

Mr. Chris Mullin: We on this side of the House are listening with bated breath to find out what the right hon. Gentleman suggests is the solution to this terribly complex problem. As he is Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, we treat his views with particular respect. He has been speaking for nearly 20 minutes, but we still do not have a clue.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman says that, because I am the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, I must have a wonderful solution that rises above the efforts of diplomats and all the others who have failed to find a solution. I cannot do that; I cannot deliver a miracle. I can only suggest that if we analyse what has happened clearly, we may, just possibly, be in a better position to halt the still downward slide and prevent the


war spreading into, for instance, Macedonia, where at least we have taken the first right move. Preventive diplomacy has been followed by preventive deployment.
There are now, which I greatly welcome, American soldiers there—only a few hundred of them—but I hope and pray that, this time round, preventive deployment, or the beginning of intervention has behind it a credible threat: that there will be no question of ever withdrawing those troops, should they be attacked, should borders begin to be messed about with and should we begin to see the horrors in Bosnia translated on to the Macedonian map. I hope that that is what it means. It is important that we should make it clear that that is what it does mean so that we do not see Macedonia going the way of Bosnia.
No, I cannot at this late stage produce wonderful solutions out of a hat. I can, like every other right hon. and hon. Member, speculate on whether Sarajevo can be saved and whether that can be done either by some NATO force, which I do not believe will be forthcoming, or by—

Mr. John Gunnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: No. I am about to end my speech. I have kept the House too long already.
Alternatively, we can speculate on whether Sarajevo can be saved by strengthening the Bosnians, perhaps even with the support of those Islamic forces, and by weakening the endless Serbian drive, incentive and determination to try to smash Sarajevo which at present the Serbs feel is necessary because they do not understand any other settlement and can see no prospect other than that, somehow, they must seize Sarajevo.

Mr. Gunnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: No. I am about to finish.
That is the grim prospect that we face as the House goes into recess. I do not offer cheap solutions or, indeed, expensive ones. The dangers are very great. It is possible to save Sarajevo if there is a whole combination of measures, not just the pouring in of NATO troops. That is what may occur. However, I see nothing other than blood and misery following on from the errors of the past. I pray and hope that those errors arc not repeated on the Macedonian scene.

Mr. David Young: The former Yugoslavia is one of the greatest challenges that faces not only the United Nations but each and every one of us.
Various reasons are given as to why we cannot intervene. We are told that it is a civil war between neighbour and neighbour and that it is a war with no front line. It is a war similar to that in which guerrilla-trained people defeated Hitler and put him to flight.
When we hear all the reasons why we cannot act, I sometimes wonder whether it is time to consider some reasons why we should act. Perhaps action would have occurred long ago if Bosnia had oil. We find that action occurs quickly from surrounding countries in respect of oil-bearing states.
What perturbs me is that ethnic cleansing smacks of the holocaust. From our not too distant history, we know the

penalty that was paid by ignoring the slaughter of the Jews in Germany. Reasons were given then for why we could not act.
No one is entirely guiltless in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. However, the Serbs—above all—have consistently thumbed their noses at the United Nations. Yesterday, only seven minutes after a truce, the United Nations forces were attacked. I do not argue easily for the engagement of British land forces. However, if we are to abide by the United Nations, we must act together with a United Nations force. In respect of this issue, the United Nations has acted too little and too late.
Let us consider the growing request of the Muslims to be allowed to be armed. That would not have come about had there been an attempt to make an even playing field from the start. However, sanctions were never implemented enthusiastically and no thought was given to the point made by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) that if we could not supply the Muslims, we should effectively have disarmed the Serbs.
There are many Bosnian Muslims in my constituency. One Muslim said to me, "We appreciate your food and we appreciate the bravery and dedication of your soldiers in getting it to us, but are we just going to be kept alive so that eventually we can be raped and butchered?" That is the challenge that we in this House face.
Will the United Nations eventually secure peace only on the aggressor's terms—the terms of a raped Bosnia and a butchered Bosnian Muslim population? If that is the case, the United Nations will be the principal loser—a latter-day League of Nations. Is the United Nations going to stand by while its authority is flouted and its troops attacked?
Also, we can and must embrace more enthusiastically the problem of former detainees and refugees and the sick and injured. We said that we would accept 1,000 ex-detainees and their relations. Germany agreed to take 2,000 and France agreed to take a meagre 385. Little Switzerland agreed to take 1,500. However, we have not yet taken a quarter of our promised quota. We can hardly set ourselves up as a world leader on humanitarian issues if we cannot, even now, fulfil that quota.
The situation is too fluid, too dangerous and too unstable to talk just about quotas. We should produce a policy that will react enthusiastically and quickly to the situation. As the slaughter continues, the casualties will increase and there will he a greater need for medical help for those who are injured: it calls for a policy of humanitarian support for our Bosnian neighbours.
It worries me when we consider what the United Nations did in the middle east, yet it is only now considering taking in only 300 ex-detainees. It is by one's deeds, not one's words or resolutions, that one is eventually known. There is growing evidence that the aggressors are determining play in the war. The League of Nations failed because its policy became one of appeasement. The United Nations is on trial. It is a test of every member country.
If the Serbs and other warlords win, the ideals of the United Nations will have been sacrificed, and the United Nations will founder on the rock of appeasement, just as the League of Nations did many years ago. The principles of the charter of the United Nations will be flouted if we do not act. The rising nationalism throughout the world will regard the conflict in Bosnia not as the end but as only the beginning of a world holocaust.

Lady Olga Maitland: This debate is an emotional affair, principally because of my own Serbian background. It might be assumed that, because of that background, I could be enormously supportive of Milosevic and try to excuse him or take a deeply critical and horror-struck view of all that has gone on in the name of so-called Serbia. Milosevic might be their leader, but he does not represent all his people.
Interestingly, during the election in December, despite the enormous, one-sided campaign that Milosevic conducted against his opponent, Milan Panic, who had been scorned and derided and had not been allowed access to the media, people who heard Milan Panic's message turned out to vote. It is remarkable that, despite enormous pressure—for example, names slipping off the electoral roll, jobs being lost, double registrations, and no registrations—34 per cent. of the electorate voted against Milosevic.
I say that with tremendous feeling for that beleaguered community. If there is any chance of bringing the terrible slaughter to an end, we must do everything in our power to back the opposition.
A few weeks ago, Vuk Draskovic, the leader of the Serbian Renewal party, was savagely beaten. It was interesting to note that the outcry that followed put more pressure on Milosevic than anything else that the international community had done. It shamed him. I was proud of the fact that our Prime Minister sent a letter of protest—quite right, too. The way in which Madame Mitterrand went to Belgrade and badgered Milosevic was also impressive, and quite right, too. It was interesting to note that, ultimately, he yielded to the pressure where it hurt, because, frankly, he was made a fool of. He did not like the reality that, at long last, some opposition had risen up. He did to the opposition the only thing that the butcher of the Balkans could do—he wiped it out. He closed down the Serbian Renewal party and made it impossible for other parties to function.
We can learn many lessons from that incident—and I hope that we will—because, for once, Milosevic had been challenged on his territory and he backed down.
I share the anguish expressed in the Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on initiating the debate. I also support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
I have watched the events of the past year with horror. I have tried to put my point of view to our Government. I accept that they are genuinely anguished and it is unfair to accuse them of complacency. I do not believe that that is right. The Government could protest, quite rightly, that they have spent more man hours on this issue than on many other topics and with less clear answers. I am sorry that the Government have encountered that difficulty.
I do not put all the blame on the British Government, because I accept that they have made a positive contribution in terms of humanitarian aid. The fault lies with international dithering—I use the word international deliberately. The European Community has failed. I believe that the countries that make up the UN have failed. The crisis over Sarajevo confirms that. Even as we speak, the shelling, the mortars and the sniping continue. That is

the result of non-intervention. I find it humiliating that yet another ceasefire has been turned into a mockery after seven minutes.
It is humiliating to learn of the shelling of the French UN protection force in Zetra, just outside Sarajevo—a Serb snub if there ever was one. Mercifully no one was killed in Zetra, but 38 people were killed elsewhere. I find it depressing to read in the newspapers today of Barry Frewer, the UN spokesman, who said of the shooting:
It is not being respected by either side. It is very disappointing.
I find it disappointing that we seem to have difficulty accepting that defenceless people have a right to protect themselves. We should reconsider the whole question of lifting the arms embargo. I am encouraged by the fact that the Foreign Secretary has not ruled out the idea. At present these people are using what few weapons they have to hand; we are offering them no human protection. We are thereby exposing them to far greater dangers, because they are so vulnerable.
What is the definition of a safe area? In these areas residents and security forces alike are being killed. Spanish forces, for instance, are under fire from the Bosnian Croats. The other day two Canadian UN soldiers were wounded. And the British aid convoys are continually under fire.
The United Nations has said that it will launch air strikes if its troops are fired on. When will the allies take such action? What is the breaking point? If we continue to do nothing, it is hardly surprising that we are never believed.
There are dangers associated with inaction, too. The United Nations is no longer respected as a world authority. That could have dangerous repercussions across the globe. It sets a precedent. I am worried because the authority of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe process has been grossly diminished, even though it has been instrumental in activating monitors.
Scorn has been heaped on all the declarations of the past 50 years designed to improve the lot of the beleagued human race—the 1948 universal declaration of human rights, the 1950 United Nations human rights convention, and the 1960 United Nations covenant on civil and political rights. Is it really right to ignore them all? I believe that we ignore them at our peril.
I feel uncomfortable when I hear that this is not our war, or that we have no interests at stake in it. I do not accept that. Bosnia is at the heart of Europe and it is no good pretending otherwise. Greece is regarded as a healthy member of the European Community. Italy, Austria and Germany, all near Yugoslavia, are of course regarded as European nations. After all, where is the heart of Europe? Some people might not regard the Shetlands as exactly at the heart of Europe, but they are certainly part of it.
Yugoslavia and Bosnia are our prime responsibility. I do not accept the argument that we should exercise our responsibilities in Cambodia or Somalia but not in Bosnia. Certainly, if we can afford to send our troops there, we should do all we can—but surely not at the expense of a country and a people who are our own kind.
I do not condemn the Vance-Owen efforts, or those of their successors, to find a solution.
I know that the Minister has spent many hours meeting the leading personalities in the Balkans and I know how difficult and frustrating it has been. None the less, I do not believe that we should back off because of the difficulties.


I do not believe that appeasement has ever paid; I cannot think of an example of where it has done so. The price will be tomorrow's account of bloodshed. It could begin in Kosovo. We could see the inexorable spread of a war that no one bothered or had the heart to stop in time. The danger now is that it has become unstoppable. Territorial ambitions may almost have been satisfied in Bosnia. Regrettably, Greater Serbia has come about and the Serbs could now turn their attention to Kosovo.
I was in Kosovo last December as one of the monitors of the election. It was eerie and uncomfortable to be in that silent town, with a people cowed, knowing that a bombshell would drop at some stage although they could not tell when; it was like the silence before a storm. Do people realise that all the schools there are closed, that children are not being educated? Do they realise that the people there are not getting jobs? The town is already under siege. I saw for myself that the warlord Arkan had his camps in the vicinity. It is hard to believe that anyone could say that it was hard to take action when the camps were so visible.
Undoubtedly, Milosevic will feel that he has unfinished business. I was disappointed to find that, in the mind of the socialist party, there seems to be a question of Kosovo being allowed to return to the 1974 constitution established by Tito. To give that autonomy seems like common sense when one is sitting in this country, but, regrettably, I found that the socialists and Milosevic take a wholly different view. That is why I fear that reason will, yet again, go out of the window.
As soon as Bosnia has been cleared up, the Albanians, then the Bulgarians and the Greeks will become involved. The Macedonians will also be under tremendous pressure. I congratulate the United Nations on deciding to put in a token force as a deterrent which, I hope, will be increased. Nevertheless, a widening of the war to embrace Turkey is a possibility. Anything could happen. We have a moral responsibility to decide when we should do something other than our very important humanitarian aid—although I do not denigrate the marvellous aid, which has saved many thousands of lives.
I have a particular interest in our aid convoys because they were organised through the Crown Agents, which are based in my constituency in Sutton. They told me about the morale of the drivers. They are not military men, trained for war; they are civilian truckies who decided to offer, at great risk to themselves, to carry out the important driving work. They sent a message back to the Crown Agents saying that, if the British troops are withdrawn because of fears for their safety, they will carry on driving because they believe that they should. I am proud of them for taking that action.
I am proud of our British troops. I have not heard a word of complaint about the dangers to which they have been exposed. They are a highly professional fighting force with a job to do. If anything, we hear of their frustrations at being unable to do more or to respond as their instinct tells them. I wonder to what degree they give debriefings to Ministry of Defence officials; and do officials listen and learn from their lessons?
We must take great care about the future of the Muslims in Bosnia. The Geneva talks get going yet again this week and some unsatisfactory partitioning will take

place. If a viable area of country with access to the sea is not given to the Muslims, the price that we shall pay will be a Palestine for the next 40 or 50 years.
Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, we must watch the Islamic community. The Arab world is intensely following events on television. It is remarkable that they have not been more involved, but if in the long term the Muslims, or what is left of them, are left besieged and hopeless, they will turn to guerrilla warfare, aided and assisted by Islamic fundamentalists, and we shall be helplessly at their mercy until land is given to them. If the Geneva talks do not define clearly the Muslim territory and put in United Nations forces physically to protect them from the Serbs or Croats trying to take an extra bite, the price that we pay could indeed be terrible.
Ultimately, the real challenge and, I believe, the only way to bring this terrible war and fighting in the Balkans to an end is to concentrate more on President Milosevic. He is the inspiration for Serbian expansionism. The buck stops with him. The warlords do not act alone; they are sustained by Belgrade, where they return for more assistance. Milosevic is rightly known as the butcher of the Balkans. I find it difficult to accept that he is regarded by the international community as the only means to peace. I do not believe that we can achieve peace by accepting every word and promise that he makes, because since these terrible tragedies began he has been empty, cold and calculating. He has broken promises and has been determined to mislead and to try to get away with it.
Let us look again more closely at this man. The one moment when he was under genuine pressure was at the Athens summit because the Americans supported the concept of air strikes, which he believed were imminent. That is why he buckled down on Karadzic, went off to Pale and pressured Serbs by saying, "You must now accept a peace deal". What happened? We all suddenly leant back with a huge amount of relief and said, "Great, the deed has been done; we can now relax our vigilance." That may not have been the message that we intended to convey, but that was the impression that Belgrade got.
We had fine words from Milosevic. He would close the frontier; no more vehicles, assistance, weapons, oil or armaments would go from Belgrade to Bosnia. That did not happen. One or two roads were closed and eight remain open. The no-fly zones are continually breached. From a parliamentary answer, I discovered that of the 800 breaches, the allied forces had been able to intercept about eight, because of all the short helicopter flights ferrying personnel, the wounded and weaponry.
In his own land, Milosevic is tightening up his totalitarian rule. He is becoming a more skilful, intelligent and charming Saddam Hussein, who seems more acceptable but who somehow or other manages to have his hideous way. He sacked the president, Cosic, the man with whom he had worked closely, because he dared to question his methods.
Now, we must give all the support that we can to the opposition parties. We must assist Studio B so that it can extend its transmissions to the rest of Yugoslavia with the message about the kind of man that its leader is. If the hope of the international community is to rely on internal dissent, we must facilitate that and encourage the people who have the means and the will to stand up to him.
We should bear in mind just how Milosevic is tightening the ratchet in his country. Some 1,000


journalists were sacked from the state radio and television for daring to be politically incorrect. People in leading jobs —whether in universities, in medicine or the arts—lose their jobs if they are not politically correct and their places are taken by socialists at Milosevic's behest. We should also bear it in mind that he is taking action to purge the army, for the second time, of any leadership about which he feels doubtful. Some 40 officers are due to go within the week, to be replaced by younger officers who are compliant and who will assist Milosevic in his terrible work.
We are seeing a country that is moving dangerously towards a totalitarian state that will push wherever it can. I urge the international community to seize the political will and follow through UN resolutions by saying that if those resolutions are broken, we shall take action—and then do it. The Serbs are cowards when they are attacked, as we can see from what happened when Vuk Draskovic stood up to Milosevic. We have reports about cowardice in the field. They are not the great fighting men that people believe them to be. They just have heavier weaponry.
We should not be so awed by the Serbs. It is important that we take stock and realise that this Balkan monster will never stop until he is challenged by the will of the international community.

Mr. Chris Mullin: It is not every day that I find myself on the same side as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)—at least, I think that we are on the same side. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) not only on his initiative in obtaining this debate but on acting as an unofficial Whip to those of us who have a clear idea of what should be done in such a terrible state of affairs.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on a very fine speech—as fine a speech as I have heard in some time. I do not say this in any party political sense, but I am only sorry that more of his colleagues were not here to hear it. However, he can have the satisfaction of knowing that he and his colleagues outnumber the members of the Press Gallery, to which we are not supposed to refer. Whenever we discuss something of great importance, the Press Gallery is empty.
The House and the country have been badly misled. From the outset. we have been told that nothing can be done about anything in Bosnia. We have been told that the terrain is impossible, that the people are impossible and that the experts are against doing anything. No doubt those same arguments were rehearsed in the 1930s. However, I think that we have been misled and that the experts, of all persuasions, have been saying something different. As the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South said, for some unaccountable reason the message has not reached those in high places—or if it has, it has been suppressed.
I hope that the Minister will say something about that, because I am genuinely puzzled about what has happened. The more we learn about what the people on the ground have been saying, be they journalists or whomever, the more puzzled we become. A number of distinguished journalists who have spent months in Bosnia have visited us in the House. The opinion of all those whom I met was unanimous. Indeed, not only did they speak for

themselves, they spoke for many of our diplomats and military men with whom they are personally acquainted. For a long time, they have held the view that military intervention has been and is feasible, but it is getting less feasible by the hour. I remain puzzled why word of that, if only to rebut it, has not reached the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
From time to time, colleagues meet British diplomats in Yugoslavia, NATO or the United Nations. We are surprised to learn that they, too, feel that the Government's policy has been what one described recently as
a diplomatic and strategic disaster with major implications for western security.
One of the Government's own diplomats, with close knowledge of the position, felt so frustrated that he made that comment.
Another diplomat who spoke recently to some of my colleagues referred to the need for an ultimatum to the Serbs to be followed by military action. He was asked whether he had made that clear to his political masters. He said that he had. He was asked whether he had met them during his visit to London. He said that he had not because no one at the Foreign Office had asked to see him. They knew he was here, but no one asked to see him.
I am sorry to say that I am not really all that puzzled because I understand what is happening—we are being misled. The biggest surprise was to learn that there are senior people in the military who take a similar view about military action. Of course, we must always be cautious when talking to soldiers who say that a little strategic or surgical bombing, as they like to call it, will do the trick. Anyone who followed the various pronouncements of the military men during the Vietnam war will know that they got it badly wrong. Therefore, I do not suggest that politicians should always take what the military says as the absolute truth. However, it is surprising to hear very senior military people talking about policy to date as having been too little, too late. The word "appeasement" is openly used, and one now hears the former French commander on the ground, General Morillon, saying that the siege of Sarajevo should be lifted by military force if necessary.
However, the puzzle continues, and on 12 July the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles that no advice had been received
either from senior diplomats or from military figures that a solution could be imposed by military force."—[Official Report, 12 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 682.]
I should be surprised and amazed if what those of us who are not that well connected in the relevant circles had been saying—or at least a flavour of it—had not reached the Prime Minister. About a dozen of us wrote to the Prime Minister—I think that the letter was dated 14 July—and we have not yet received a reply. We put to him, in words which I think that he will understand, our firm view that the country is being misled. I hope that we shall receive a detailed explanation, if not from the Minister present tonight, perhaps from the Prime Minister later—I should prefer to hear it tonight.
The position is more complicated than it is being made to seem. Our diplomats and military personnel have been misled by Ministers about the state of public opinion and, perhaps, the state of opinion in the House. I think that they have been told not even to contemplate anything that involves military action, because the British public will not wear it and Members of Parliament will not support it. It


is disappointing that some of the same people who whipped up hysteria over the Gulf war and the Falklands war—I do not want to be diverted by those quite separate issues—have been less straightforward about telling the public and the military the truth about Bosnia.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I am puzzled. I believe that the feeling from the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Brussels is that military intervention is feasible. If that is true, is my hon. Friend implying that that advice from the most senior military personnel was never given to the Prime Minister or his senior colleagues, or does my hon. Friend feel that, for some reason, despite the Government assuring the House that no such advice about the feasibility of military intervention was given, they felt that it would be unwise to pass that advice on to the House?

Mr. Mullin: I cannot pretend to know what the position is but there is a serious problem. However, what most hon. Members present this evening have been hearing from those in positions of authority who brief Ministers daily is different from what Ministers say that those experts are saying. Perhaps the advice that those experts have given Ministers has been hedged around with qualifications—perhaps the experts have said one thing to us and another to the Ministers. I do not know what the explanation is, but I should like to hear the Government's version of events from the Minister.
Military intervention by ground troops would be practical and honourable. Plans for it exist already, but we lack political leaders capable of rising to the occasion. Our soldiers in the field—there are many of them—have been badly let down by the Government.

Ms Short: The answer might be that military personnel are not entitled to say what Britain should do politically; they can give that answer only if asked the question. If asked whether limited military action to stop the aggression and the destruction of multi-ethnic Bosnia can be taken, the answer is yes. But it is said that military action consists of political objectives secured by military means, and if the politicians will not ask the question, the military are not allowed to say, "Yes, we know how to do it if you want to do it."

Mr. Mullin: That is one possible explanation. I do not know what the explanation is, but I should like to hear it. The evidence that my colleagues and I have seen and heard does not accord with pronouncements of the most senior Government members.
Our soldiers on the ground in Bosnia have been badly let down. They have been placed in the humiliating position of having to negotiate—if that is the right word —with drunken gunmen in some cases. They have witnessed unspeakable atrocities without being able to do what they want to do and are capable of doing—intervene and put a stop to them. Soldiers who say that they are entitled to expect a clear objective from politicians are right. We should be giving a clear objective and grasping the nettle.
A number of suggestions have been made in the past which have become an excuse for not doing much. One suggestion was that there should be an air exclusion zone. That bore absolutely no relation to the problem, because

everyone knew that the main problem did not come from the air. Others suggested that we should do a bit of bombing as a substitute for doing something of lasting value. That is no good, either. People who talk in vague terms are not grasping the nettle. I grasp it unequivocally —as I and others have done previously—and say that I am in favour of using as many troops as necessary for as long as necessary to bring this tragic state of affairs to an end.
I recognise that that is a large thing to say, but it is not an impossible thing to say. Frankly, it is a smaller objective than defeating Saddam Hussein and driving him out of Kuwait, liberating the Falkland Islands, which are 10,000 miles away, or using thousands of troops to maintain that not very perfect regime in South Korea for 40 years. It is feasible and we should do it.
The casualties are much more than simply the unfortunate people of Bosnia. The United Nations has been let down by its most senior members who are unable or unwilling to enforce its resolutions. We should be told clearly now—I thought that we already understood this —that negotiations without credible threat of force behind them do not work. The Serbs are laughing at the United Nations. They are not only doing that—yesterday, they were shelling the United Nations. On the 9 o'clock news tonight, I was pleased to see that United Nations soldiers in Bosnia have been given permission to shoot back when they are shot at. I agree with that. However, it is not the solution. There is an urgent need to restore the credibility of the United Nations. That can be done only by a calculated ultimatum to the Serbs, backed up by the threat of military action.
We must start somewhere. The situation has deteriorated so much recently that intervention is getting more costly, more dangerous and more difficult by the hour. The obvious starting place is that suggested by the 80 or so congressmen—to lift the siege of Sarajevo by whatever means are necessary. From there, one goes on, hopefully, to lift the siege of the other so-called United Nations safe areas and remove the artillery that threatens not only Sarajevo but one or two other places. Heavy artillery is fixed. It cannot be moved easily, but it can be destroyed easily—and should be. I remember Martin Bell, who knows something about the situation, telling us that clearly when he came to see us the other day. Unless someone tells me otherwise, that is what I will continue to believe.
Finally, I ask the Minister whether there is any level of atrocity in the former Yugoslavia that could cause us to support military intervention. If so, what is it? If there is none, will he say so clearly?

Mr. Max Madden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on securing this debate and on his comprehensive speech.
For the sake of brevity—as a number of colleagues wish to speak—I begin by asking the Minister several questions relating to the refugee crisis. As he and the House will know, in October-November 1992 the United Kingdom Government agreed to take 1,000 former detainees and 3,000 dependants. The latest figures reveal that, so far, we have received 250 ex-detainees and 424 dependants. I am grateful that the quota for ex-detainees has been extended to cover those who are deemed by the United Nations


High Commissioner for Refugees to be vulnerable. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will shortly consider increasing the quota of 1,000 to enable Britain to take more of the people who have suffered as a result of this horrific war in Bosnia.
Secondly, will the Minister assure us that the Government stand ready to receive more medical cases? So far, we have taken 68 and I am advised by the UNHCR that there is great urgency about persuading countries, especially those in the EC, to take medical cases. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are sympathetic and will take more such cases. As we have heard in the debate, Sarajevo is in crisis. Hon. Members have mentioned Mr. Larry Hollingsworth, the UNHCR Bosnian representative.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I listened to the last two speeches, and I am listening to the hon. Gentleman. I have noted the almost studied indifference of Ministers. Would it hurt Ministers to listen to the speeches on this important subject?

Mr. Madden: I consoled myself by noting that the Minister was taking notes of my questions, and I expect to receive detailed replies.
Mr. Hollingsworth recently met hon. Members from all parties and stressed the great urgency of funding to enable his organisation to purchase plastic sheeting, shelter and other necessary items to protect the people of Sarajevo in the coming winter. Those purchases need to be made now, but they are not being made. Will the money be made available?
At the meeting in the House, Mr. Hollingsworth repeated the words that were reported in The Guardian on 20 July. That report stated:
The head of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' humanitarian operation in Sarajevo criticised the UN's programme as ineffective yesterday and called for military action to break Serbian blockades,…
Speaking in London at the launch of a Refugee Council appeal for Bosnia, Larry Hollingsworth, a former colonel in the British Army, called for military force to allow aid convoys to reach Sarajevo and the besieged enclaves of Gorazde, Zepa and Srebrenica.
My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles said that a broad-based alliance of senior British diplomats, senior military commanders and senior aid workers holds the unanimous view that military intervention could and, indeed, should be taken, not only to protect the so-called safe areas, but to halt the aggression in Bosnia, which would, we hope, lead to an effective and sustained ceasefire. Hon. Members have confirmed what my hon. Friend has said.
A military commander recently said that rapid response military forces needed rapid response politicians. The central charge of the debate is that politicians, especially those in the European Community, but also those in the UN, have singularly failed to ensure that the aggression, genocide, rape, atrocities and horror of Bosnia should he halted. We believe that that can be done only through effective military intervention.
I hope that the Minister will not recite the usual catalogue of excuses for not engaging in such intervention. I hope that he will seriously consider the military-intervention options now available, which are mentioned regularly by the alliance of diplomats, military commanders and aid workers to whom hon. Members—including myself—have referred. I also hope that we can

engage in a mature and sensible debate about the military options; many of us believe that now is the time to adopt them.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: It is very unfortunate that the problems of Yugoslavia should have prompted so little interest years ago, long before the present crisis. In 1990, I went to Whitehall to tell the Minister of State—he will remember the occasion—that a crisis was looming. Precious few people wanted to know about the crisis then and for that reason many have not studied its root causes.
To a large extent, the crisis was caused by the over-decentralisation of the old Yugoslav state under President Tito. Not long after the end of the communist system in Yugoslavia, even Croat, Slovene and Montenegro communists thought of themselves as Croats, Slovenes and Montenegrans, rather than as Yugoslavs. When the nationalists in Croatia pressed for Croatian independence, the British Government at first adopted an even-handed approach. However, on 26 June 1991—when both Slovenia and Croatia declared independence—between 500,000 and 800,000 people in Croatia were members of the Serb ethnic group. Many lived in very compact areas, in particular the area around Knin and Krajina. In Serbo-Croat, "Krajina" means borders or frontiers. There was a substantial Serbian majority in many parts of the large frontier area between Knin and central Croatia.
When Croatia became independent—or was declared independent—in June 1991, non-Croatian citizens were immediately "ethnically cleansed". Serbs were immediately declared not to be citizens and were refused passports. They were driven out of their homes and jobs through intimidation. After only a few months, 60,000 Serbs were refugees in Serbia, having fled from Rijeka, Zadar and Zagreb itself: indeed, it is now said that about one third of the Serb population of Zagreb has been ethnically cleansed and driven away. Important people in particular were intimidated by the Croatian regime.
At the beginning of May, I visited the mass grave of Serbs and Muslims who had been massacred by the Croats between November 1991 and March 1992. Hon. Members should mark the dates, which include part of the period before Bosnia-Herzegovina was recognised as an independent state—the period when it was still within the state of Yugoslavia that was recognised by the international community. The Croatian army had invaded and taken over Bosanski-Brod and Deventa and massacred large numbers of people. I shall never forget seeing bodies exhumed from the grave at Bosanski-Brod. The first to be taken out of the grave was a woman. I know that it was a woman only because of the blue skirt and white spots. I saw 38 other corpses laid out. I remember the stench. The interesting thing is that that area was designated under the Vance-Owen plan to the Croats.
I might be accused of being pro-Serb. I remind the House that I was the first person to mention the names of Šeselj and Arkan. In the debate on the Queen's Speech on 1 November 1991, I warned of those dangerous neo-fascist nationalists who are now undoubtedly war criminals following events in Croatia.
We must bear it in mind that many of us are being hoodwinked. Not only the Government are being


hoodwinked. Indeed, to a large extent, I congratulate the Government. I thank God that there has been no military intervention by British or United Nations forces in the former Yugoslavia. It would have made the situation a million times worse. So many of the people who talk of military intervention have never been to the former Yugoslavia and seen the situation for themselves. They have certainly never been under fire. They do not know what it is to be bombed. Military action certainly does not make for a retraction of effort on behalf of those who are accused of aggression.
The public relations firms have come into their own in the Yugoslav crisis. The Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, led by a Muslim fundamentalist in the shape of Izetbegovic, who wrote the Islamic Declaration in 1970, reprinted in 1990 in Sarajevo, have said that a majority or even a substantial minority Islamic population cannot live at peace within the political and social systems of non-Islamic communities.
It is false to imagine that the Muslims have been exclusively victims. We often hear people and sometimes Government spokesmen say that all groups have perpetrated atrocities. Yet the only ones which we hear about in the media are those committed by Serbs. Undoubtedly, atrocities have been committed. How many people in the Chamber tonight have referred to Muslim atrocities? They have certainly taken place, but the Muslims are running a good PR operation, especially from New York. [Interruption] I have listened quietly and I have not interrupted anyone.
Hon. Members should look a little further than their noses. If they picked up the 16 December 1992 edition of Epoca, the Italian magazine, they would see an illustrated article about the torture of Serbian prisoners by Muslims in Sarajevo. If hon. Members read the edition of the weekly German newspaper Die Zeit published at the end of last week, they will find that a Muslim commander in Sarajevo has been sacked by the Bosnian Government because 28 Serbs were massacred in a mass grave just outside the centre of the city of Sarajevo. Those hon. Members who cannot read German should have that article translated—but they should not claim that the Muslims are totally innocent because they are not. I was told by an Italian and French journalist in Bosnia that the Europa and Zagreb hotels in Sarajevo arc used as brothels by Muslim soldiers, who force Serbian women and girls into those hotels. It should not be suggested for one moment that all the atrocities are committed by one side.
It is suggested that British soldiers should be sent into Bosnia to fight on behalf of people who are committing atrocities, but that is not something that I should want to see. It is interesting that many of my hon. Friends are keen to see British troops withdrawn from Northern Ireland and rushed to Yugoslavia.
Sanctions have prevented the Serbs from putting across their case. Ian Greer and Associates acted for the Serbs at the beginning of the conflict but they are prevented from doing so now because of the sanctions. That is also true in the United States. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can heckle as much as they like, but Major General Mackenzie —the United Nations commander in Yugoslavia until last November—was quoted in a Los Angeles magazine as saying that every ceasefire that he negotiated was broken

by the Muslims. General Waldren, who recently gave up his command in Yugoslavia, said the same about the recent ceasefire negotiated at Srebrenica. Hon. Members should study the details, and not believe the propaganda that appears in our newspapers.
I will not defend Milosevic, Tudjman or any of the other leaders. None of them is a true democrat. Tudjman's Croatia is no more democratic than Serbia—it is to a large extent less so. At the time of the election to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) referred, Mr. Micunovic, leader of the Democratic party, told me that Belgrade television was controlled by Milosevic. When I asked about the press, Mr. Micunovic said that the press was on the side of the opposition. I said, "I wish that had been the case in our last general election. We might just have pulled it off."

Mr. Barnes: I accept that paramilitary excess exists on all three sides—perhaps more heavily on some than on others. What is to be done about three groups that are at each other's throats when at least one of them has far more military power than the others?

Mr. Wareing: The important thing is that human rights should be respected in Croatia and Bosnia. International pressure must be brought on them both to ensure that human rights are respected on their territories. If a solution is to be found for Bosnia, it must be acknowledged that it is not a state but a province. It was a province under the Austrians and Turks and in the former Yugoslavia. The human rights of all Bosnia's ethnic groups must be respected in any solution—and that solution cannot be imposed on the significant Serb minority. If we forget their plight, no lasting solution will be found.

Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful for having been called to speak at this point. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has been squeezed out. I shortened the time of my wind-up speech on behalf of the Opposition in the hope that he would be able to speak.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), though the word "congratulate" is not perhaps the most appropriate word in the circumstances, on obtaining this debate, which is in relatively prime time by Consolidated Fund Bill standards. He spoke with conviction and authority. Although, as he knows, I do not agree with every word he says, I respect the strength of feeling that he expresses. My hon. Friend was joined in the passion of his speech. as on so many previous occasions, by the hon. Member for Staffordshire. South (Mr. Cormack). What they say brings a dimension to the thinking on this most worrying subject that should be heard. Those who urge caution over the former Yugoslavia would find, were they here, that they were in the minority at this evening's gathering of right hon. and hon. Members. Perhaps that is why they have stayed away.
I, too, recognise that the tragedy that we see unfolding in the country that used to he called Yugoslavia, or in the conglomeration of new countries that used to be called Yugoslavia. must affect all of us. Those who watched the news this evening saw the choir of schoolchildren that used


to travel the world. The realisation that those children are hiding in buildings that are being bombed every moment brings home the awful reality of the situation.
It is difficult to escape feeling emotional when watching something that is happening in a country that for so many years was the holiday destination of many citizens of this country. The killing, the destruction of property, the outrage of mass rape and the effect that the war has had on so many innocents, including the millions of children in that country, is not something from which any of us can easily walk away.
I do not underestimate for a moment the depth of the tragedy, but it is important to recognise that there have been two successes. The first—I accept that it is a limited success—is that, contrary to all the predictions of the last two years, the conflict has not yet spread largely outside the areas where the fighting initially took place.

Ms Short: Not yet.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend says "Not yet." I accept what she says. However, there has been some limited success in containing the conflict to that area. I shall turn later to why I believe that it may continue to be contained.
Secondly, the humanitarian effort has been successful. I refer not just to the troops under the United Nations flag who have protected the convoys. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said, civilian truck drivers have gone to that area and stayed there, notwithstanding the dangers. Non-governmental organisation people have served there, as have civilians who work for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other organisations. This huge operation has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise would have died of starvation or cold during one of the nastiest and bitterest winters in that part of the world. We should not forget that they did an enormously successful job. The number of casualties, high though it already is, would have been much higher had they not gone to the area. We must not underestimate, either, the difficulties involved in assisting in this bitter conflict.
It is easy, in the security of this Chamber, debating this issue in a civilised manner according to rules that have been formulated over the years, to talk about putting troops into the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), whose views on previous wars and conflicts I have listened to with interest in the past, said—as if this was easy—that he would send in as many troops as it would take for as long as necessary.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Indeed.

Mr. Robertson: The Minister confirms that; and I wrote down what my hon. Friend said. That is easily said, but not so easy to do.

Mr. Mullin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Robertson: I will give way briefly, but I have only a limited time.

Mr. Mullin: I quarrel about the word "easy". I did not say "easy" and of course it is not easy and one accepts that. I was talking about the same degree of determination as that displayed in the Gulf and Falklands wars. That is what I was talking about.

Mr. Robertson: I know that my hon. Friend did not use the word "easy". I am ascribing "easy" to his comparison to what was done in the Gulf war and in the Falklands war. Those wars are not comparable, and my hon. Friend said that himself. Even if there was the political will, the physical logistics of the area might make it extremely difficult to attempt anything of that nature.

Mr. Macdonald: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not only some Members of this place who are advocating that course? Larry Hollingsworth, who has been in charge of the humanitarian aid effort in Bosnia for many months now, has said that force should be used to try to deliver that aid. It is not just the armchair theorists who are saying that; it is also being said by the people on the ground.

Mr. Robertson: Some people on the ground say that, but others do not agree. Cedric Thornberry was in the House only a few weeks ago and he argued the opposite view. He said that if we start to impose military personnel in any kind of peace-making capacity, we would close down the humanitarian effort almost overnight. Even before we could start to deploy the limited troops available, we would stop the humanitarian effort which has created such life-saving capability.
I do not want to enter that argument too deeply. My party and I believe that there are serious problems in respect of the involvement of an open-ended commitment of a military peace-making exercise. I would like to leave the point on that parenthesis as I believe that there are other things that Governments could do and should be doing at the moment. The fact that they are not doing these things is assisting the degeneration of the conflict.
First, the international community in general should recognise that serious errors have been made in the conflict. Those errors include the way in which recognition was given prematurely to Croatia, and perhaps also to Slovenia, and the poverty of will that characterised the way in which mandatory economic sanctions were first imposed on Serbia. For 10 months, the Serbs were able to get around the potential of economic sanctions by setting up dummy companies and the like.
Had we implemented the sanctions with the vigour and force that we are now deploying, perhaps a greater impact would have been made on Mr. Milosevic at a time when that might have mattered very much in relation to the fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
It all matters not just because we are outraged by what we see on our television screens, but because that wave of refugees coming way beyond the borders of Bosnia, Croatia and even Slovenia will be a problem for the nations surrounding that benighted part of the world and also for many other countries, including our own. Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the fact that, despite the Government's initial offers to take in refugees, especially those who were former inhabitants of the detention camps, we have not even reached the miserable level that the Government originally offered.
The problem matters also because the credibility of the UN and of international institutions is at stake as a result of what is happening in that part of the world. Of course, the fighting need not necessarily stop even with an agreement, if an agreement were to be reached in the next few weeks. That endless fighting will undoubtedly affect the rest of the world.
We must recognise that the Washington agreement was a disgraceful watershed for which our Government, along with others, share responsibility. In one fell swoop it destroyed the Vance-Owen plan and left no real political objective in its place. It was an open invitation to the Serbs and Croats to move quickly to partition what was left of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The constant loud reference to the ending of the arms embargo that we heard from the Americans simply gave greater impetus to the Serbs and Croats who wanted to grab as much territory as possible before that eventuality occurred.
The agreement claimed that there would be safe areas, but they were in no way to be made safe. Has that not been vividly displayed since then? It claimed that the borders of Bosnia would be sealed to the supply of arms coming in from Serbia, but there was no way in which they would be sealed. It said that there would be threats against further action from Serbia and from Croatia, but there was to be no back-up to those threats at all—not even the possibility of limited air strikes on supply routes which might at the time have had and might even yet have an impact on the fighting that is taking place in Bosnia. There was to be no action, and there is still no action, taken against the land-grabbing of the Croats who are still engaged in aggression in that part of the world.
What should we do? I make a few limited suggestions, because the House wants to hear the Minister's reply to the many points that have been raised. First, we must make safe areas safe, as was promised. That means a British commitment to supplying the 7,500 troops that the United Nations Secretary-General said were necessary to carry out that promise. All those troops have been promised, but they are certainly not in place. I understand that they are short of the logistic and technical support that would allow them to be deployed to the former Yugoslavia, and to Bosnia-Herzegovina in particular. The British Government could make available that logistic support, and they should do so immediately.
It is right that there should be troops from Islamic countries, but I go along with the Government in their resistance to the use of troops from Iran. Islamic troops are an important signal to the Muslims in that part of the world.
Secondly, we must be much tougher on Croatia, and we must be tougher immediately. Although they have taken large numbers of refugees—of course, there is a worry that they would move them out of their territory—what is happening on the side of the Croatians in the south of Bosnia is as unacceptable as what the Serbs are doing in the north.
Thirdly, we must make it clear that any three-way partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina is not a long-term solution for that part of the world. Indeed, it is a recipe for long-term violence in that area. We need to escape from the mentality that keeps people in small ghettos without any passageway, especially to the sea. We must cut off supply routes to the Bosnian Serbs where they are still using force.

Mr. Gunnell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Robertson: I am afraid I cannot give way. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gunnell: Will my hon. Friend answer a fourth question?

Mr. Robertson: I have a couple of points to make before I finish my speech.
We must cut off the supply routes and we must be prepared—

Mr. Gunnell: Will my hon. Friend answer a fourth question? What would he do about Sarajevo?

Mr. Robertson: I apologise to my hon. Friend because I am in the last few seconds of my speech. I cannot curtail the Minister's time for replying to the points that have been made. No doubt the Minister will take my hon. Friend's question on board.
We must also consider the long-term future of the refugees in the area. We must do something about the recognition of Macedonia, and we must do more about deploying more troops to the area. Kosovo's guarantees and observers must be maintained in position because it is extremely important that it is protected.
That list of items is the minimum that we can do and the minimum that we need to do at this time. We must do what is necessary and what is possible, and we must do it right away. To wait any longer is to court real disaster.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Members who have been present throughout the debate would agree that its tone has been measured and concerned. By the standards of the House, the debate has been remarkably free of party rancour. That is how it should he, because we all accept that what is happening in the former Yugoslavia is the greatest tragedy that Europe has seen since the end of the second world war. It is not just the greatest tragedy; it is a tragedy that was precipitated and carried forward by crime and wickedness on the part of many of those who are participating in the leadership on all sides.
I agree with much of the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who said that all sides have a responsibility to bear in the matter. I think that the Serbs are the most guilty, but all the participants —Serbs, Croats and Muslims—have been guilty of crime and wickedness in the war.
It is also true that our concern is greatly deepened by the fact that we have 2,400 troops in Bosnia and many people from the Overseas Development Administration, the Royal Air Force and other service men on the ground, all of whom are engaged. All of their lives are at risk.
The debate has been treated with the gravity that it deserves. I find it somewhat odd, however, that among those who are most prominent in calling for military engagement are many who opposed British involvement in the Gulf war. As the hon. Member for West Derby also pointed out, many of those who are most keen to see British military engagement in the former Yugoslavia are those who want us to withdraw from Northern Ireland. It is difficult to reconcile those opinions.
When people talk about public support for military intervention, I believe that they are wrong. When I look round the Chamber, I accept that, probably, the majority of those present are in favour of military intervention, to some degree. I do not believe that that represents the majority view in my party and I suspect that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) does not believe


that it represents the majority view in the Labour party. I have made it my business to try to determine where political views lie and I do not believe that they lie in deepening military engagement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said that the issue was about leadership. He said that one should go to people and say, "These are the issues: support us." That is an important point. but I should like to reply to him in something like the language used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). I do not believe that one commits oneself to military action unless one is prepared to suffer all that is required and to go on for as long as may be necessary. I do not believe that one can do that unless one's effort is truly underpinned by national will. I do not believe that that will exists in this case.
In common with me, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has heard the leader of his party speak on Yugoslavia on many occasions. We know that, for many months, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has called for a forward policy of military engagement. It has taken many forms, but the right hon. Gentleman has always pressed for that policy.
I was in the Chamber on 11 June when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces reported to the House on the occasion when British troops had been engaged in action and had killed certainly one Croat and possibly two. At that point, the right hon. Member for Yeovil responded by saying that we should now consider withdrawal.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), sitting in front of him and referring to the right hon. Member for Yeovil, said:
I have never heard such a two-faced statement in my life. The right hon. Gentleman wanted more troops before. Now he wants them out."—[Official Report, 11 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 559.]
I believe that the Liberals' policy is unsustainable and that it varies: it is difficult to identify. Secondly, when the body bags start coming back, the public support will fall away—

Mr. Hugh Bayley: rose—

Mr. Hogg: No, I want to make progress.
It is important to stand back and identify the chief elements of the the war and of our policy. Bosnia's is essentially a civil war. It is perfectly true that Serbia and Croatia are involved to some degree, but the principal participants in the fighting in Bosnia are the people of Bosnia. And what are they fighting about? They are fighting about the character of the country in which they live. This is essentially a civil war, not a war between independent states.
It is primarily this fact which distinguishes Bosnia from the Gulf. In the Gulf there was a clear act of aggression by one sovereign state against another. The political objective could be clearly defined: the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. But the political objective in Bosnia is an agreement between people who have been murdering one another for two years—an agreement to live in harmony. I do not believe that we can bring about such an agreement by the application of external force.
We are content to continue as long as we can with a policy of delivering humanitarian supplies. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and my hon.
Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) were right about that. Not only soldiers and RAF men are involved; so are the ODA drivers and many others. Two thirds of the population of Bosnia now depend on external aid and there is no provision for the forthcoming winter. So, unless they are inevitable, we must not take measures that put at risk this aid. If we do, when the winter comes, there is a risk—perhaps even a probability—that people will die in their tens of thousands.

Mr. Bayley: rose—

Mr. Hogg: No, I want to make progress.
We are also pursuing a policy of sanctions. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber asked why. He was good enough to admit that the impact of the sanctions on the Serbian economy had, in many respects, been effective. We are pursuing this policy because it is the only way of putting continuing pressure on Serbia and Serbia is the only power capable of bringing the Bosnian Serbs to heel. We will continue the policy until an agreement that is honestly implemented is in place—

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise what he has just said? He has said that this is the only way of putting pressure on Serbia. Does he really mean that? Is that now the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Hogg: If I have time, I shall deal with other questions of military action.
A further point about the structure of our policy is that we are seeking to create the circumstances in which the three parties to the conflict can come to an agreement. Whatever agreement they are likely to reach will certainly be associated with misery, disappointment and word eating. We know that, but there is a chance—even a reasonable chance—that the three parties to the war will come to an agreement. That is why I welcome enormously what Lord Owen and Mr Stoltenberg have done and the presence of all the relevant parties at Geneva. We cannot make them come to an agreement, but we can create the circumstances in which they are capable of coming to an agreement. We can create the mechanisms and the international principles that will guide our approach to the outcome of such an agreement, but we cannot compel people to come to an agreement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said that he is ashamed of the failure of Europe. We have to face the fact that there are many conflicts in Europe that will not be solved by international action because conflicts that are in essence civil wars can be solved only be agreement between those engaged in them. It is a great error to suppose that the United Nations, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, NATO or any other such body can, by the application of external force, put an end to such conflicts.
Something else to which I take grave objection is the way in which people condemn what the British Government have done. We have been at the forefront of the international effort: we convoked the London conference; 2,400 British troops are now—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

Orders of the Day — London Transport

Mr. John Marshall: I hope that, before I start the new debate, it will be in order to congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on instituting a successful debate in which many hon. Members spoke with great conviction and from the heart. It was also one of the best attended late night debates that we have had for a long time, although I think that some hon. Members should perhaps have spoken not from the heart but with the head. It was a pleasure to listen to it, but I do not necessarily expect the hon. Gentleman to stay to listen to this debate.
Although the debate refers to the Northern line, London transport goes much wider than the underground and includes buses. My hon. Friend the Minister will expect me to say something about the proposed deregulation and privatisation of London Buses. I greatly welcome the proposed privatisation, which has of course been preceded by the usual scare campaign. We are used to such campaigns before privatisations. Before British Telecom was privatised, we were told that payphones would cease to exist and that rural telephone services would be ignored. In fact, since the privatisation of BT, there are many more payphones and they work, which they did not do when they were owned by the state. There are also better services in town and country. Wherever we look, privatisation has led to increased investment, dramatically improved productivity and improved morale in the industry involved. I believe that there will be similar benefits for London Buses. As soon as London Buses is removed from the public sector, investment will be increased, and the same will be true of the underground.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marshall: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, the refugee from the police.

Mr. Banks: On the contrary; I am not a refugee from the police, who acted in exemplary fashion. We had an interesting discussion, during which I learnt a great deal about how much the police dislike the Sheehy proposals. However, that is by the by.
It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to talk about scare stories. I do not want to spoil his yarn, but it was the Select Committee on Transport which warned of a disaster on London's buses if deregulation is pressed. As he well knows, that Committee is Tory dominated.

Mr. Marshall: We have often heard of Select Committees being Tory dominated. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) used to be Chairman of the Health Select Committee, which we were told was Tory dominated. That was a surprise to the Whips and to the House. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) knows, most of the scare stories originate from Labour Members and we have seen similar campaigns before.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I have experience of bus deregulation in a rural and semi-rural area. Many early morning works journeys and uneconomic services were lost and passenger numbers declined, even though in some cases bus mileage increased because of

competition. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport Research Laboratory studied bus deregulation and found that, in many instances, services had severely deteriorated?

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there has been an increase in car ownership outside London, which is why the number of passengers has declined. He also knows full well that the number of passengers was declining before deregulation. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West said that the Select Committee had produced a wonderful report. The Select Committee pointed out that there has been an increase in bus miles, a fall in operating costs and a fall in public subsidy. Given the record of bus deregulation outside London, I am willing to say that it will be beneficial within London.
Until we had competitive tendering for bus routes in London, the service was very inefficient. Across the system, competitive tendering has led to a 20 per cent. reduction in costs, which surely emphasises the role of competition in achieving a more efficient service.
We must also consider the quality of the service in London. Before tendering, 92 per cent. of buses ran and 8 per cent. did not. Today, 98·1 per cent. run on the tendered routes. Instead of 8 per cent., only 1·9 per cent. now do not run—a much more efficient service.
I do not believe that deregulation will lead to hundreds of extra buses running down Oxford street, but there will be more mini and midi buses in the suburbs, we will have new routes and a more innovative service, which will be to the benefit of everyone in London.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to nail the wicked lie that is being put across London: that deregulation and privatisation will lead to the end of the concessionary scheme for senior citizens. All too often, those who want a few cheap votes in London go round frightening elderly people by saying that the concessionary fares scheme is at risk. I believe that the scheme, which is the linchpin of Government policy, will remain. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to underline that commitment.
The Department of Transport has a limited budget to invest in London Transport and in road improvement in London. The budget should therefore be spent in a way that is most likely to relieve congestion. That is the best solution for individuals and commerce, but if we are to relieve congestion in London we must seek different solutions for inside and outside London. Outside London, improving the M25, London's bypass and industry's archway to Europe, must be a major priority. The M25 succeeded in taking traffic off many London roads. The need to widen it so soon after its completion is a tribute to the lack of foresight of traffic planners and the excessive preoccupation of the Treasury in the 1970s with the short-term and not the long-term needs of this country.
Within London, the emphasis must be on public transport and on improving buses, Thameslink and London Underground. We must recognise that 83 per cent. of people in central London move around by public transport rather than by private car.
We shall never secure the objective of eliminating or reducing congestion within London by tinkering with our road system. Such a strategy would be prohibitively expensive, divisive—because most people do not want big new bits of concrete and tarmac within London—and


counter-productive, because, as the experience of Los Angeles confirms, urban roads are wonderful examples of Say's law that supply creates its own demand. All that new urban motorways do is entice more people into motor cars.
Any preoccupation with the private motor car will fail to solve the basic problem of London—the need to enable millions of Londoners to travel to work in the City, to the west end and to the suburbs, and to preserve London as a centre of employment for millions, a major retail city and the centre of a major international airport. The key to the survival and prosperity of London is a decent public transport system.
The problem of the 1990s is a legacy of the locust years of the early 1980s. After the change of control in the GLC in 1981, the emphasis within London Transport was not on the quality of service or investment in the future, but on the level of fares. When my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) was a member of the GLC, the emphasis of the then leader of the GLC was on subsidising fares for American tourists, rather than on producing a better metro system for Londoners to enjoy in the 1990s.
We are today reaping the whirlwind because on many routes in London the level of investment in the early 1980s was far too low to give us a decent service in the 1990s.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Tory Government stopped it.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. In the 1980s, the Government allowed local authorities to reinvest the proceeds of any capital receipts. The GLC was awash with unnecessary capital investment, as was shown by the way in which the London residuary body was able to flog assets all over the place. If the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) had not had a pathological desire to own large tracts of London, regardless of the use to which he could put those assets, the GLC could have invested much more.

Mr. Banks: We were not allowed to.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman, now that he has been released by the police. has a desire to speak from a sedentary position. I was, at that time, chairman of a London borough finance committee and I can confirm —no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister can as well—that local authorities were allowed to spend their capital receipts and to reinvest them. If the GLC of the day had been willing to sell assets, it could have reinvested those receipts.

Mr. Banks: If the hon. Gentleman had been chained to the door for as long as I have been, he would realise that it is necessary, at my age, to make sedentary interventions. As he has forced me to my feet, let me just tell him that although the GLC had proposals for capital investments and for giving substantial revenue support to Network South East, we were told by the Government that we would not be allowed to put them into effect and that anything that we gave to Network SouthEast would merely be deducted from the central Government grant. What would have been the point in those circumstances?

Mr. Marshall: It would have been perfectly in order for the GLC to top up its capital programme by selling assets. The real trouble was that the then leadership of the GLC knew that it had assets that it was not using, but had a

pathological desire to cling on to them. There was a sort of machismo—one had to maintain one's assets. It did not want to sell them, to flog them off, to use sites to create homes or jobs; instead it wanted to keep them in the public sector. Without that approach from county hall, the level of investment in the underground system would have been substantially higher.
In recent times, there has been a substantial investment in modernising the Central line and I thank my hon. Friends in the Department of Transport for the money that they have spent on that. Elsewhere on London Underground, we all know of stations with defective escalators, platforms in need of a lick of paint and clocks that do not work, and of the fact that on many routes the rolling stock is old, uninviting, frequently graffiti-ridden, and often rather dirty. In fact, if the first impression of London for overseas visitors was based on the Northern or District lines, they would not return to, for example, the United States saying that London was the most modern city in the world.
The objective shared by all Conservative Members is the need for a decently modern metro. During recent years there has been great emphasis on the Central line, the Jubilee line and crossrail. However, by putting emphasis on those three main routes there has been inadequate investment in other parts of the core service.
In the autumn statement the Government gave a commitment to funding the Jubilee line provided that there was also some private sector funding. More recently, the House gave a Second Reading to the Crossrail Bill, but it has been made quite clear that there should also be significant private sector funding for that project. I welcome the Government's determination to get private sector funding for part of both those projects.
There is no doubt that the Jubilee line extension will lead to a dramatic increase in the value of Canary wharf. It will convert what looks like a white elephant into a very valuable asset. That was recognised by the Reichmanns with their original commitment to help fund the extension. It would be wrong for private gain to be financed solely by public funds. The autumn statement underlined the need for private funding and the tardy reaction of the bankers is to be condemned. They know that jobs and the viability of their own projects are at risk. I hope that they will be somewhat more aggressive in providing the necessary funding in future. Indeed, if they had been as slow in funding some property developments as they have been in funding the Jubilee line, they might be in a much happier position today.
Crossrail will also be a major bonus, not only to the private sector but to many people in London. Once the Paddington to Heathrow extension is funded, it will be possible to go from the City to Heathrow in 35 minutes. It is to be a joint private sector-public sector project, which is the way in which many of our routes will be funded in future.
In 1988 Sir Keith Bright, the then chairman of London Transport, described the Northern line as an abomination. Little has changed since, except that the rolling stock is five years older. The rolling stock is too old and the trains are graffiti-ridden, dirty and colourless. The stations are often dirty and they need modernisation. Those of us who use the Northern line, as I did this morning—or yesterday, to be more precise—and pass through Angel station have a reminder of what a modern station should be. We can rejoice for the people of Islington that they have a very


expensive, modern station. Those using other stations on the Northern line wish that they could also have equally good stations.
At Hendon Central, my station, the clocks do not work and the dot matrix system, which was once at the forefront of technology, is now hopelessly out of date. Many stations still lack automatic ticket barriers, despite the fact that they are self-financing. It is not unknown for escalators and lifts not to work.
The Northern line requires a major overhaul—modernised stations, new rolling stock and improved track. It has been estimated that there will be an 18 per cent. growth in the number of passengers using the line over the next nine years. Once the modernisation of the Central line has been completed, the southern aspect of the Northern line will be the most congested route in the whole of London. The mere replacement of the signalling and control systems on the line would lead to a 28 per cent. reduction in the time of the average journey and a 25 per cent. increase in the line's capacity. Given the anticipated increase in the number of passengers who use that line, those statistics show the need for improvement.
In the 1992 autumn statement, the Government confirmed approval for the conditional expansion of the Jubilee line, but cut investment in the core services in London Transport. Before the House returns in the autumn the public expenditure round will be well under way. The message that we must give to the Government is that we need a substantial commitment to modernising London transport and the Northern line. In my constituency, the decision not to maintain the grant to the core services at the previous promised level meant that the modernisation and refurbishment of Hendon Central, Golders Green and Brent Cross stations did not take place. Trains need to be refurbished and emphasis should be placed on passenger security measures.
I have two suggestions for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, in last year's autumn statement, the Government allowed British Rail to lease £150 million worth of rolling stock. If it is all right for Thameslink to lease rolling stock, why is it not right for London Transport to do so? Secondly, in 1992 there was a substantial reduction in the planned investment in the core services of London Underground—will my hon. Friend the Minister restore part of that cut? Such a move would be warmly welcomed across London.
My hon. Friend has already become a popular hero due to his decision over the Oxleas wood. I should like him to become a doubly popular hero by deciding that more money should be spent on London Underground as that would benefit all Londoners and would he warmly welcomed, not least in my constituency.

Mr. Keith Hill: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on his choice of subject and its selection for debate. However, his resounding support of bus deregulation in the context of a debate on investment in London transport seems bizarre when viewed in the light of the well-reported hiatus in bus investment in London. That hiatus results directly from the joint threat of bus privatisation and deregulation. Investment in London transport, the sensible purpose of

the hon. Gentleman's debate, is of fundamental importance to the future prosperity of our capital city, and the condition of the Northern line is of particular and vital daily concern to many thousands of Londoners.
I declare my interest in the debate. Hundreds, if not thousands, of residents in the Clapham and Balham districts of my Streatham constituency rely on the Northern line stations of Clapham Common, Clapham South and Balham for their day-to-day travel needs. In addition, I am privileged to be a member of the Select Committee on Transport, which was much maligned in the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South. Only last week it published its own highly critical report on London's public transport capital investment requirements. I shall refer to both my interests during my speech.
The background to the Select Committee report is that of a persistent long-term decline in the quality and efficiency of our transport system in London. Gross overcrowding on our British Rail and underground lines and at our railway stations has been the normal daily experience of all London passengers for as long as any of us can remember. Since 1989, the Government-induced economic recession has brought an unanticipated, and hopefully temporary, relief to the unfortunate London commuter. There are simply fewer Londoners with jobs to travel to now, but if and when—as we all pray—the recession lifts, without drastically increased levels of investment, a future of yet more overcrowding in a decaying public transport still beckons us.
Londoners have long been familiar with the observation that traffic on our roads now proceeds at a slower pace than in the days of the horse-drawn carriage. The health costs of environmental pollution resulting from slow-moving, stop-start traffic are almost certainly reflected in the appalling growth of bronchial illness, especially asthma, and particularly among young children, in London's population recently.
But congestion and an inadequate public transport system bring formidable economic costs as well. In the late 1980s, the Confederation of British Industry estimated that £10 billion was the yearly cost to the London economy of late deliveries, missed appointments, cancelled meetings and stress-related illnesses associated with the chronic congestion and overcrowding of London's transport system.
The implications of that neglect of our transport infrastructure for London's already precarious economy are both dire and well attested. In May 1990, the Corporation of London published a report entitled "London's Transport: A Plan to Protect our Future". It should still be the bedtime reading of every Transport Minister, especially the Minister for Transport in London, and not merely because it identifies the extension of the Northern line to Streatham as an important scheme worthy of consideration. On the basis of extensive consultations with more than 20 major City financial institutions, the report concluded:
There is an immediate crisis of high congestion and low quality of the transport system. What is at risk is not just the City as Europe's premier financial centre. It is London as an international capital, and as such one of the UK's greatest assets.
In other words, it is not only environmentalists and long-suffering London commuters who are saying that things cannot go on as they are; the Government's friends


in the City are warning that London's future is now at risk. Certainly nothing has changed in three years since that report was published, unless it is to get worse.
It will not be good enough for the Minister to argue —as I expect he will—that, at £2 billion out of the Department of Transport budget of £7 billion, London already gets a disproportionate slice of the cake. The truth is that London's role in the national economy is unique, and its transport problems are also unique. With less than one seventh of the population of England and Wales, London produces almost one fifth of the gross domestic product, yet it has been uniquely ravaged by the current economic recession. That comes on top of a prognosis for the London economy that was already highly dangerous.
A major source of the threat to London's economy is the inadequacy of its public transport system, yet Londoners are uniquely reliant on public transport for their travel to work. For 30 years, Governments of all political shades—I fully concede that—have systematically starved London's transport services of the necessary investment.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The hon. Gentleman was characteristically generous in attributing blame for past sins to Governments of all complexions. He seemed to be developing the argument that insufficient capital funds were expended on London. I ask him to expand that in one of two possible ways. Is he suggesting that, of the £7 billion currently spent by the Department, more than £2 billion should be spent in London? If so, can he indicate which parts of the Department's programme outside London he would cancel? Alternatively, is he saying that the whole budget should be bigger? If so, does he have policy clearance from the Labour Front Bench for that assertion? We are in dangerous territory, unless he is capable of substantiating both of those propositions.

Mr. Hill: With his usual prescience, the Minister anticipates precisely my proposition that, in the allocation of resources in the existing transport budget, more funds should be transferred to London. If he will have patience, that is precisely a point that I will address in my ensuing remarks. I have argued that, because of that history of neglect, there is a powerful case for sustaining higher investment. That was precisely the recommendation in last week's Select Committee report.
It is undoubtedly true, as the Minister will again undoubtedly argue, that there is record investment in the early 1990s, but two or three years of high investment following the lowest ever level of investment in the 1980s is a small swallow, and the summer has been remarkably short-lived. In its report, the Select Committee states:
We received evidence from both Network SouthEast and London Underground Ltd that the absolute level of investment is insufficient to maintain or improve the system. The danger is that the speed, frequency and reliability of passenger services will decline rapidly if the railways' infrastructure continues to deteriorate.
Such deterioration is inevitable on London's underground and, as London Underground's evidence to the Select Committee made dramatically clear, it is inevitable on the Northern line in particular. That is because London Underground was the special victim of the investment cuts that flowed from the autumn statement. Those cuts jeopardise the short-term upgrading and the longer-term modernisation of the Northern line.
When the Secretary of State for Transport appeared before the Select Committee, I asked, half in jest I confess, whether he had recently used Clapham Common tube station on the Northern line. He replied that he was sure that he had, but that it had not been recently. I suspect that that was something of an understatement. I also suspect that it would be helpful for Transport Ministers occasionally to discard the ministerial limousine and see London's public transport as it really is.

Mr. Norris: The first time that I asked to use the tube as part of my ministerial duties, London Transport was kind enough to provide me with a train of my own. Thereafter I have used the system incognito, which is a far better way to find out what the system is really like.

Mr. Hill: I am pleased to hear that. If the Minister has been to Clapham Common tube station—

Mr. Norris: I went last month.

Mr. Hill: In that case, the Minister should be ashamed of himself for allowing its present deplorable condition to continue.
I regularly travel on the Northern line to and from my constituency—I did so today—and it is not an agreeable experience. At the southern end of the Northern line, the passenger walks through dank, dark and dingy corridors to the gloomy caverns of platforms at the end of those corridors. Stained plaster bulges on walls that do not appear to have had a lick of paint for decades. The stations are bereft of staff, which is the result of another of the forced economies on the underground. No wonder women are so reluctant to use the underground outside peak times.
That is no way for commuters to have to travel at the end of the 20th century. Yes, trains do keep running—just about—but passengers travel in antiquated, overcrowded and rickety rolling stock, which at the age of 35 years is rapidly approaching the end of its useful life. It is a miracle that the system runs at all. It is a triumph of managerial and engineering ingenuity over lack of financial resources, and it cannot continue for much longer.
In the 1992 autumn statement, London Underground's capital budget was slashed by a massive 30 per cent. A direct and immediate consequence of that cut will be the delay until 1998 of the full upgrading of the stations at the southern end of the Northern line. More alarming still is the fact that the cuts in the London Underground investment programme for this and the next two years will mean a delay in the total modernisation of rolling stock, track and signalling on the Northern line until the year 2005—more than 10 years away. Northern line commuters face another 10 years of train, track and signalling breakdowns, failures and delay—that is, if the modernisation ever takes place.
As Mr. Denis Tunnicliffe, managing director of London Underground, made graphically clear to the Select Committee, for London Underground to embark on a project involving £1 billion worth of investment—a massive proportion of the underground's budget—would require a level of confidence in the Government's commitment of resources that would be difficult to justify against the backdrop of the recent wild fluctuations in funding for the underground system. What a way to run a railway!
It goes without saying that the Minister will plead the necessity of cuts, in the light of the Government's £50 billion budget deficit. Let us leave aside the obvious comment that the London commuter is being forced to pay the price of the Government's economic mismanagement. Even within the constraints of the overall budgetary deficit—here I come to the point made by the Minister in an earlier intervention—the Government have made a clear decision to disadvantage the underground passenger.
The truth is that, wherever else the autumn statement cuts may have fallen, they did not reduce the overall transport budget: that remained stable. In the autumn statement, the Government made a conscious decision to shift transport spending away from public transport in London—and London Underground in particular—into road-building projects outside the capital. They could have chosen to sustain investment in London Regional Transport; they chose not to do so. The London commuter will not forget that act of discrimination in a hurry. Nor will Londoners lend any credence to the Government's pleas of poverty for London Regional Transport, in the light of the decision—announced last week, and much lauded by the hon. Member for Hendon, South—to devote £144 million to the lunatic creation of a 14-lane M25. That was an act of massive despoliation of the green belt, which will suck yet further resources away from London.
The Government still have an opportunity to make amends in their next autumn statement by committing a stable, sustained and higher level of funding to both British Rail and London Underground to permit the maintenance of services through infrastrcuture renewal over the medium term. I hope that they will heed the advice offered unanimously by both Conservative and Labour Members of the Select Committee:
If no such funding is granted, passengers in London will inevitably experience a rapid decline in the speed, reliability and frequency of their services, which would seriously affect the quality of their lives and the competitiveness of business in the nation's capital.
Those are sombre words which the Government ignore at their peril—and at the peril of London as well.

Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on choosing this subject for debate. After his customary out-to-lunch bit, he made a number of useful points. Having noted the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), I felt sufficiently humble not to speak; after all, he can make a much better speech than I can. Then I looked at the Minister and thought, why not?
Few would deny that London's transport system is in a poor state. That is not to talk the system down; it is merely to acknowledge that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, it has been underfunded for years. Let me point out yet again to the hon. Member for Hendon, South that, when the last Labour GLC declared its intention to invest heavily in capital projects in London Transport generally, the Conservative Government of the day used various devices to block our aim. That is the truth of the matter.
One needs to look at the position today in terms of capital investment decisions and take it on a little to show

that the Government have let down Londoners badly. There was a time when we thought that perhaps the Government had changed their mind and saw how important it was to invest in an efficient transportation system for the capital city; it would be to the benefit of not merely London but the whole national economy. Just before the 1992 general election, in the 1991 autumn statement the Government made a commitment to provide investment to meet the target of a "decently modern metro"—the term which comes up time and time again —in 10 years.
In autumn 1991 the Government promised £633 million towards London Underground's capital investment in the core system mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon, South—that is, in trains, structures and services of the existing network. The hon. Gentleman referred to new projects such as crossrail and the Jubilee line extension as if they were already up and running. They have not even been started. Those new projects are subject to separate ring-fenced funding. Such projects are often prayed in aid by the Government when they talk of record sums of investment for future years. As we know, construction has not yet commenced on any of the projects.
The Government safely won the election in April 1992, having promised such capital sums as I have mentioned and, I might add, not to increase value added tax or to cut public expenditure. They managed to renege on all those promises. The 1992 autumn statement is crucial to what is happening now to London underground in particular but to London transport in general. In the 1992 autumn statement the Government allocated only £416 million to the core system in expenditure year 1993–94. That was a shortfall of £217 million, or 34 per cent., on what was promised.
The Minister has always been very open and he admitted that the amount allocated in 1992 was less than was promised. But the investment is crucial. The Government said in the previous autumn statement how much was needed. To reduce the amount in the subsequent one seems like reneging on a firm promise. How can one expect London Regional Transport to plan adequately given that uncertainty?
In November 1991 the then Secretary of State for Transport pledged the necessary investment and said that by 1993–94 London Underground investment in the existing railway should be more than £700 million a year taking into account the Monopolies and Mergers Commission statement that that amount was needed to provide an adequately modern framework. [Interruption.] The Minister says that that was a London Regional Transport figure, but it was accepted by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. One must assume that both knew what they were talking about. The same statement was then emphasised by the Minister for Public Transport on 17 February 1992.
So one could have expected Londoners to believe that Ministers were speaking the truth and that London Underground and London Regional Transport could proceed in the full expectation of getting what they were promised. Of course, it has not worked out that way. In 1991 the Government promised London Underground £571 million for 1994–95. In 1992 that was revised to £343 million. That was a shortfall of £229 million, or 40 per cent. In the 1991 statement the Government promised


London Underground £585 million for 1995–96. In 1992 that was revised to £425 million, a shortfall of £160 million, or 27 per cent.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, that is no way to run a railway. I have heard the Minister say that, when one compared the position in the 1992 autumn statement with that in 1991, the Government could not proceed on the original basis because the circumstances looked bad. Yet the allocation from the Treasury to the Department of Transport remained virtually unaltered between those two years.
Then Ministers decided to change the allocation between the different transportation modes for which they are responsible, giving greater emphasis to roads than to London's transport system. By comparison with 1992–93, the total roads budget for 1993–94 increased by £125 million, or 4 per cent., but London Regional Transport's share fell by £132 million, or 30 per cent. The situation will worsen in 1994–95. The total roads budget is set to increase by £194 million, or 31 per cent.
It is not a question of pleading a shortage of money. The sum allocated by the Treasury seems to remain the same between those years, but the Government's priorities changed in 12 months, and that is something that the Minister must address.
I presumed that the hon. Member for Hendon, South would concentrate most on the Northern line—and rightly, given that his constituents suffer a poor service on that misery line, as do many other commuters. I believe that it has one the longest tunnels in the world, extending 17 miles. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, keeping that line running is a triumph of managerial and engineering expertise.
I remember travelling on exactly the same trains that run today when I made the journey from my school—Archbishop Tennyson at Kennington Oval—to Tooting. The stations also seem remarkably the same.

Mr. John Marshall: It could not have been all that long ago.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is very kind. I wish that it were so, but it seems a long time ago to me.
Trams were running in those days. I do not know whether the Minister is old enough to remember trams and trolley buses. I was only a babe in arms at the time, but I still remember them, and much deplore their passing. Trams had their guaranteed road space, and no one got in the way of one of those great clanking vehicles. Introduced in their place were unenforceable bus lanes—but now Croydon is considering a tramlink, and there are trams in Manchester and Sheffield. Trams are making a comeback. They never left some continental cities. I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon, South that the Government got transport planning badly wrong, and London and other cities have suffered as a consequence.
The Northern line also has been affected by the change made between the 1991 and 1992 autumn statements. Some of its stations have been refurbished—London Bridge, Borough, and High Barnet to East Finchley inclusive. Refurbishment was to be undertaken at eight stations this year, but that work has been cancelled because of the 1992 cut in Government grant. The planned £56 million package of refurbishment of 10 stations at the southern end of the Northern line has been postponed until 1998.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South mentioned Angel station, but Mornington Crescent will remain closed until further notice. It cannot be reopened until its lifts are replaced. Because of the cut in the 1992 budget, London Underground does not have sufficient funding for that work.
As to passenger security measures at the southern end of the Northern line, it was planned, as part of the 10-station modernisation project, to replace the life-expired equipment at Clapham North, Clapham Common, Clapham South, Tooting Bec, Tooting Broadway and Balham stations and to install equipment at Oval, Colliers Wood, South Wimbledon and Morden. Those proposals also have stalled, and that work will not be undertaken in the current financial year. The money that London Underground was clearly promised by the Government before the general election is being cut.
Call me an old cynic if you wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I cannot believe that there was not some connection between the general election and London in the promises that were made by the Government in the 1991 autumn statement. If indeed, as the Minister for Transport in London said, it was because the situation looked a lot worse in 1992, perhaps the Government did not know enough about the way the economy was functioning. The Government do not show up in a particularly good light either way. Either they misled the electorate, or they did not know what was going on in the economy. Neither possibility reflects credit on the Government.
I hope that the Minister has studied the report produced by the Centre for Economic and Business Research. Its title is "The Economic Impact of the London Underground Core Investment Programme"—not what one would consider to be a particularly catchy title, but certainly it is a vital piece of research. We all want a "decently modern metro." As the report finds, that programme would deliver passenger benefits worth hundreds of millions of pounds a year. It would deliver an improved quality of life in the capital, enhance the availability of skills for employers, boost the economy and employment in both London and the rest of the United Kingdom, and offer value to the United Kingdom well in excess of its cost to Government and pay for itself in 10 years.
The Minister knows a good deal when he sees one, and he has concluded one or two in his time: he has the gold watch to prove it, I understand. That seems like a good deal to me. I cannot understand why the Minister does not reach out with both hands and grab it. There is a difference between borrowing money in order to fund current expenditure and borrowing money in order to invest for the future. One has to draw a distinction between those two aspects of expenditure. We are debating investment for the future. Unless we have a properly funded London underground and London transport system—not just properly funded but at a sustained and predictable level, for it is the unpredictability that tends to throw costings and plans up into the air—we shall not get London's economy right.
It is not just a question of pleading for more money for London—London Members obviously do that—but investment in rolling stock and new buses for London means jobs for people in cities outside London, because Greater London has lost most of its manufacturing capacity. Investment, therefore, means jobs for people outside London. That, again, must surely be what the


Government want to achieve. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept that to borrow money for investment in public transport is completely different from borrowing money merely to sustain a budget deficit, due to revenue spending problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham mentioned the two Transport Select Committee reports, in both of which he played a most conspicuous part. The first, on the question of capital investment, stated that London's public transport system is being crippled and, with it, the future of the city. It said that London Transport needs both a higher and a sustained level of investment, the very point that I made earlier.
These are not the ramblings of some wild-eyed Trot —the kind of person whom the hon. Member for Hendon, South seems to see all around him. This was the considered view of a Committee of our colleagues, with Conservative party Members of Parliament in the majority. The Committee was not in the hands of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is seen as a bit of a loose cannon on the Tory Benches; it was in the very safe hands of the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I am sure that the Minister would not put him in the category of being a wild and unpredictable maverick within the ranks of the Conservative party.
The second report—the hon. Member for Hendon, South touched upon it—deals with bus deregulation. It was even more damning. I went to get a copy, for greater accuracy. It says that deregulation, which already presents something of a gamble, could prove to be a disaster for London.
The Select Committee went on to make several recommendations to the Government. It said that they should not proceed with deregulation and should try something else. I have seen no response yet from the Government. Perhaps the Minister can give us a clue to encourage us in the belief that that Select Committee report will not be shelved and ignored like so many other Select Committee reports.
If he does not mind my saying so, the hon. Member for Hendon, South was very selective in his quotes from the Select Committee report when he referred to deregulation elsewhere. With regard to deregulation outside London, the report states:
While bus mileage has increased, so have fares in real terms, and while operating costs are down, so is the level of patronage. Similarly, whereas in places like Oxford and Inverness, passengers have experienced genuine improvements in the quality of services, in larger cities such as Sheffield and Manchester deregulation has led to considerable problems of congestion and unreliability. This inconsistency is mirrored in the sharply contrasting views of passengers surveyed in different parts of the country.
The report then refers to the lessons for London, and makes the very good and obvious point that
There is no other city in the United Kingdom comparable in terms of size or population with London. That alone does not mean that the experience of deregulation in the rest of the country is entirely without relevance to what might happen in the capital. The fact that London is at least six times larger than the next biggest city in Britain implies that the problems to be tackled in introducing deregulation are of a different order of magnitude, but not necesarily unique in nature.
Those are strongly-worded warnings from a Committee that considered deregulation very carefully.
The Minister will receive slavish and adulatory support from the hon. Member for Hendon, South in his role as a Parliamentary Private Secretary and member of the payroll vote. However, most people who look at the matter objectively are unhappy about deregulation. The experience outside London is not consistently happy. That being so, one would have expected the more cautionary Conservative Members to say, "Let's halt for a while. Let's look at it carefully once more. After all, she's gone now and there's no need to prove ourselves as ideological loonies. We don't have to run around deregulating and privatising. Let's have a look at this one because if we get it wrong it could be hung around our necks at the next general election."
Far be it from me to pass on good advice to the Minister, but were I in his place, as I hope to be one day soon, that is the kind of thought that would have passed through my mind. However, the Minister can give us his initial thoughts about the report on bus deregulation in London.
I will conclude by asking the Minister some specific questions. He can probably guess some of them, but I might as well use this occasion to raise them. The hon. Member for Hendon, South referred to the Jubilee extension and to what it is going to do. It can do a lot of things, but it cannot do anything unless it starts. Will the Minister tell us the latest situation in respect of the Jubilee line? It is becoming rather tedious waiting for the final announcement that everything is okay and that it will go ahead. I would like the Minister to make that announcement in the House and not during the recess so that he can receive all the praise that I know that he feels that he thoroughly deserves.
What about the Crossrail Bill? The Government say that they support that, but we still have not seen the key reports on the scheme's viability or the potential for private sector support. We have heard that the private sector is interested, but we heard that about the Jubilee line extension. We need to see some of the old ackers up front, to put it in the crude parlance that the Minister and I fully understand.
Through London First, the private sector has asked the Government to give a clear commitment to the amount that they will invest in the scheme. One needs to know exactly how much the Government will pay towards the funding of crossrail. The Chelsea-Hackney line is safeguarded, but there is no clear commitment to proceed with the line. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that.
Of course there still remains considerable uncertainty about the channel tunnel rail link. Again, we would like a commitment from the Minister in respect of the finance to be provided for the central London station and the importance of intermediary stations. He knows—I have thrashed this matter around for a long time—that my borough of Newham is working hard, hoping that we will get the international station at Stratford as part of the Government's strategy for the east Thames corridor. Given the amount of money that the Government are putting into Stratford, for which we are extremely grateful, it seems that that investment could be greatly enhanced by a decision on Stratford as an international channel tunnel station. Of course, there is also the east London line extension, again approved by London Transport but without the funds available to enable construction to go ahead.
London Transport recently published its report entitled "Making Vision into Reality"—and there is also the report entitled "The Economic Impact of the London Underground Core Investment Programme". The company is seeking a commitment to £900 million per annum investment and a total investment of £6·4 billion to generate employment and additional revenue to the Treasury and London Underground's operating costs. It can be shown, not by me in this debate but by those who have carefully studied the matter, that investment in the public transport system in London can pay for itself in all the ways that one could imagine.
I hope that the Government will join the Opposition in declaring themselves to be fully in favour of giving London the public transport system that it needs. We could then hold up our heads and point to our transport system in the capital city as being the envy of the world, as it certainly used to be. Of course, that does not happen by wishful thinking. It happens as a result of sustained work, sustained investment and commitment. We will gladly join the Government in that spirit of common purpose if only they drop some of their ridiculous ideological fixations about transport and start to realise that Londoners deserve a far better system than the one they have at the moment. When they have such a system, they may be prepared to look carefully at the Government's credentials when they put themselves forward at the next general election, but I would not count on it.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): At the conclusion of this enjoyable debate, I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on raising this subject which is important to those who represent London, London's commuters and. dare I say, all right hon. and hon. Members who, along with millions of our fellow citizens, experience public transport in London as part of their daily lives.
I shall start with one of the ramblings of that well-known wild-eyed Trot, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to as a hugely critical report on London's public transport capital investment requirements. The quote is the first sentence of the conclusions of the report. It states:
There is no doubt that in the past few years investment in London' public transport has been at a significantly higher level than in previous decades.
I merely wish to record that point to underline one assertion which I might be entitled to make. That is, contrary to a lot of very misleading nonsense that I have heard—although not from the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—there is not a low level of investment going into public transport in London. On the contrary, in comparison with the investment made in the days of the Greater London council, we are now spending twice as much on London transport—in comparison with certain years, we are spending three times as much as the GLC.
Not all the difference can be accounted for by the assertion of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that that is all due to the dastardly Tory Government trying to deny the right of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to spend Londoner's money on his grandiose ideas for improving London transport.
One such gem of an idea was the Westbourne Park bus garage, which won an award from the national brick council, or whatever it was. That extraordinary creation is a wondrous celebration of the joys of the brick—if one can think in those terms at this hour of the morning. Its slight problem is that it cossets buses on the assumption that they must be kept in cathedral-like splendour overnight when not in use—presumably to keep their engines warm or to stop the rain falling on them.

Mr. Tony Banks: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Norris: No private operator in his right mind would spend that amount of money on the simple job of garaging a bus fleet. It sums up the difference between the Opposition and the Government that, when I point out the ludicrous waste of money on that particular edifice, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West says, "What is wrong with that?". There is not a bus operator worth his salt in the country who does not know precisely what is wrong with that. What is wrong with that is that it is a gratuitous waste of taxpayers' money. What is wrong with that is that it represents a ludicrous misappropriation of scarce resources in a manner that is little short of crass. I see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, whose thirst for the battle has not been the slightest assuaged by his recent experience at the hands of the Metropolitan police, is dying to leap to his feet.

Mr. Banks: Before the Minister goes into orbit on the question of the bus garage, may I tell him that many contractors now store buses in the open. That is not a good practice. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the standard of bus cleanliness is deteriorating rapidly. That is in part due to the fact that many buses are stored in the open because when some people get hold of bus operations they sell off the real estate, which makes them a nice bit of profit.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is normally a reasonable chap, but he is wrong on two counts.
First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that there is anything wrong with the idea of leaving a few buses out in the open. These days they are built to withstand the odd night of rain or even snow. Secondly, he is wrong about whether buses are cleaner than they were. He will be aware that the cleanliness of the service is one of the indicators of performance that London Transport is keen to see customers determine, not some statistician with a clipboard. On that basis, London Transport's stock is reckoned to be consistently cleaner now than in the past.
I do not want to labour the point about Westbourne Park bus garage, although it is a gem of its kind. I merely stress that, in the past few years, substantial investment has been made in transport provision.
The hon. Member for Streatham said that things got a lot better in the early part of the 1990s. He should appreciate that things are likely to get better in the middle years of the 1990s, after the return of the Conservative Government. I have no doubt that things will then go on to get even better in the late 1990s.
There is much evidence to back the Select Committee's statement that current investment in London Transport is significantly greater than that made in previous decades.
We are in the process of completing the £800 million renewal of the Central line, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will know from his constituency


interest. A £300 million programme is under way to refurbish a great many of the trains. I shall also run through some of the other projects that have been mentioned, so as to provide the answers for which I have been asked.
The Jubilee line extension will begin when the agreement with the private sector is in place. I make no apology for using that tried and tested form of words. The hon. Gentleman will know that putting the agreement in place with the Olympia and York administrators was a difficult and complex business, but it is worth fighting hard to secure a private sector contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, that contribution of about £400 million towards the cost of the scheme will compensate the taxpayer for the immense benefit that the private sector developer of Canary wharf will derive from it. I hope that we will be able shortly to make an announcement that will please the House.
The hon. Gentleman knows that crossrail is funded for the next three years, which is as far as the public expenditure survey extends. By contrast, there is no expectation of any significant expenditure on Chelsea-Hackney during the next three years. Such expenditure as is necessary will be subsumed in LRT's general vote. The hon. Gentleman was right to point out, however, that the line is safeguarded. There is no question but that the scheme should follow on after we have completed the Jubilee line extension and crossrail.
I take this opportunity to tell the House that London Regional Transport is securing agreement to the proposals for the northern extension of the east London line, and is negotiating with local authorities and others. The extension has been universally welcomed. Subject to the availability of finance, LRT would then hope to turn its attention to the equally important southern extension of the line.
The channel tunnel rail link will continue as a joint public-private sector proposition, the precise details of which are yet to be established, but the underlying principle of which is clear. To build the line, it will be necessary to seek large amounts of both public and private sector money, because the private sector can then enjoy the benefits that the line will bring.
I cannot help the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on the prospects for Stratford, because the work undertaken by Union Railways and others to refine the route and the positioning of the stations is still in hand and it would be wrong to anticipate the findings of the studies. I am not yet in a position to say what they may be, although I often have discussions with Newham council, whose interest in the matter I shall bear in mind.
I accept the Select Committee's later conclusion that larger investment in the system would be desirable and that it should be consistent. I do not come here with trite words that turn night into day; I do not suggest that reductions in LRT's capital spending were desirable, or that variations over two or three years were helpful. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that when the Government became aware of the urgent need to deal with the public sector borrowing requirement, it would have been wrong to exempt this area of expenditure.
There is a straightforward explanation for the apparent imbalance in the distribution of the "pain" between the

various aspects of the programme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of the road programme is committed some time in advance, which means that there is a need to devote a proportion of the Department's total resources to the continuance of that programme in order not to frustrate work which has already begun. In the case of London Transport, it is true to say that the decision to reduce the level of grant affected its ability to invest, but, in historic terms, it still left it substantially above its baseline of only two years ago.
I have also read to the McWilliam study to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I shall not make a detailed critique of it, but it is the only point at which I can refer to my gold watch. The House will know that the hon. Gentleman has yet to make a speech as my shadow—long may that continue to be the case—without making an overt, or covert, offer for my watch. It is an unremarkable item and I am perfectly happy to negotiate with him. What has prevented him from turning his expressions of interest —as we used to call them in the trade—into anything more positive is that he cannot put up the money. I appreciate that his extensive television career is now accruing large royalties and that Mrs. Banks is probably constrained as to how they are dispersed, but the point that he has frequently made is, to put it crudely, that he cannot afford it. In Professor McWilliam's report, affordability is an even more important criterion than desirability.
I draw a veil over my bungled and feeble attempts at humour to underline the serious point, which is that it is not enough for investment to be desirable to enable schemes to stand on their own when, in the public sector, they have to queue behind so many other calls on the public sector. Affordability becomes the key criterion. That is and always has been the fundamental advantage conveyed by privatisation, as proved by British Telecom, British Airways, the British Airports Authority or even the current proposals in the Railways Bill.
There are innumerable propositions for investment in Network SouthEast, which would lead to a positive cash flow in five years but which are not entertained because the resources are not there. As long as British Rail is in the public sector, it calls on the Exchequer's liberality, along with London Transport, roads, hospitals and schools. In the private sector, the situation is entirely different. If a scheme is good and will bring a positive cash flow within three to five years, no bank will refuse to finance the investment. Once investment is made, the quality of service is improved, the public purse is relieved and we all gain. Even at this stage, I urge members of the Opposition to recognise that privatisation is not a matter of dogma; it is a matter of recognising one of the great truths, which is that, however much money is available to a Transport Minister, of whatever party, there will always be more demands than funds to meet them. In those circumstances, we should be tapping the private sector market, which after all is the only other real source of capital available to any Government beyond that which they can raise by taxing, borrowing or printing. Regardless of which party is in power and how much the Chancellor gives the Secretary of State for Transport, there will be more demands on the public purse.

Mr. Keith Hill: The hon. Member dilates on the advantages of the private sector, but the blunt truth is that, in the Government's spending programme for 1993–94, London Underground lost precisely £300 million. That


went to Government spending on the roads programme. Which roads programmes benefited from London Underground's loss in the 1993–94 capital programme?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman knows that, even if I wished to, I could not answer that. If he has any pretensions to assuming office in this Department, he would do well to recognise that well over 90 per cent. of goods and people are transported by road. It beggars belief that Opposition Members can treat the road programme as if it were entirely dispensable—as if there were no value in relieving city centres of the appalling problems of pollution and of asthma among young children, which they are keen to allege but not so keen to see relieved by a bypass. The hon. Gentleman should be careful about assuming that all the shortfall in public transport expenditure could necessarily be made up merely by massive transfers from the road programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South did the House a service by raising the subject. I emphasise the positive aspects of the work of Denis Tunnicliffe of London Underground Ltd. and of Clive Hodson of London Buses. LUL's company plan led to the rationalisation of more than 1,000 pay and grading agreements, which previously created a climate of jobsworth that made any management improvements on the underground almost impossible to achieve. The company plan, which was not an easy task, rationalised those pay and grading agreements into an intelligent managerial structure. That has allowed London Underground to make huge leaps in quality, although I recognise that much investment is needed in the Northern line—a case that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South prosecutes assiduously on behalf of his constituents.
I share an interest in the southern half of the line, which is where I live, and I know the stations to which the hon. Member for Streatham referred, running from the Oval down to Morden. There is, none the less, clear evidence, to which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission referred in its 1991 report, of the way in which management action has transformed the quality of the line. My hon. Friend will know that we now receive few complaints about the line compared with only two or three years ago. That has been achieved not by large investment but by tremendous management effort. I take the opportunity to congratulate all those who are involved in the management of the Northern line because they have done a superb job. On present form, it looks as if the refurbishment of the line will now he completed before 2003, not 2005. I accept that that is too long away for any of us to take great pleasure from, but the programme is there and we plan to take it forward. I know that if there is any opportunity to do so, my hon. Friend will urge me to urge, in turn, LT to give that scheme high priority.
The management improvement means that, in the second year of the LT customer charter, we see standards improving across the board, and those standards being monitored not—I am sorry to use the analogy again, but it is important—by a man with a clipboard, but by customer reactions, obtained live by independent survey. They are a serious sign of whether we are getting the system right.
Both the hon. Members for Streatham and for Newham, North-West spoke of bus deregulation. On the evidence, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South is entirely right. I accept that the trade unions, many

Labour local authorities and, I am sorry to say, normally quite intelligent Labour Members of Parliament all hate it, for obvious reasons, but bus deregulation has achieved exactly what my hon. Friend has said—a great deal more bus miles run.
If one wants to get people on buses, the first thing that one has to do is run a bus. That is a simple proposition, but it is one that even Labour Members should be able to get their minds around. Once one has done that, it also makes sense to try to get the operating costs of the buses down, and they are down by about a third. Far more importantly, the subsidy required from the taxpayer has been reduced by half. That is the experience of deregulation outside London.
I congratulate on behalf of other hon. Members the hon. Member for Streatham for his part in the work of the Select Committee, which produced a rather helpful report on bus deregulation. I know that it is a matter of great political importance, so it imported a note of potential danger, which is perhaps understandable, in suggesting that unless certain steps were taken, there could be dangers in bus deregulation in London. I accept that proposition. It would be irresponsible to introduce any significant change into a market as sophisticated as London unless one were entirely clear what the changes were designed to achieve. One should take account of experience elsewhere —whether in Sheffield, Glasgow, Oxford or Bristol—the good and the bad, the advantages and the disadvantages.
I welcome the opportunity to tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that the Department has not yet formally responded to the Select Committee's report. I want to take some time to give it the attention that it deserves. I can say now that I think that it was right to point out that we need to know clearly what we shall do about the extra buses that are the happy consequence of bus deregulation. I am convinced of the need to ensure, by legislation if necessary, the continuation of, for example, the travel card. The concessionary fares scheme will continue, and continue to be funded by the boroughs as now, and it will apply across the board, not simply among selected operators in selected areas.
I give those commitments for a straightforward reason. If I were not to do so, it would imply that I did not understand what the market for public transport in London was. I hope that the House will give me credit for at least understanding that. Anyone who bothered to examine what makes London's public transport tick would understand why the travel card is important. It is the key to the willingness of people to use the system and to their ability to use it. I want to see it developed with such things as stored value ticketing. That is not available at the moment, but technology is bringing it forward, and it will open up a whole new market.
I believe that about 85 per cent. of routes will be run commercially in London. That has been the experience outside and the London bus executive will be funded to secure those socially necessary routes that are not profitable. That would again be a necessary part of the deregulation process. If, with those caveats, we can move forward, it is with one signal proposition as our banner —that deregulation does not mean no regulation.
I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will take some comfort from the fact that I do not foresee deregulation as meaning a free-for-all. It is important to learn lessons from elsewhere in the country and from our experience of the workings of the 1985 Act. I believe that,


in general, the experience has been good, but it would be crass not to open our eyes and look at experience elsewhere.
Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South on giving us the opportunity to have this useful debate. If I may say so without incurring the wrath of the Whips, we enjoy each other's company in these debates. At least, I do; I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. God knows, his taste is so eclectic that I have no idea what he enjoys, but I am prepared to make my statement on a unilateral basis—

Mr. Tony Banks: See me afterwards.

Mr. Norris: I will indeed see the hon. Gentleman afterwards. I hesitate to think what, at 2 o'clock in the morning, he has in mind. Still, with his rather eclectic tastes I have no doubt that we can think of something amusing.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to set out the Government"s response to some of the points that have been raised. I believe that the future of public transport in London is exciting. It will involve more commercialisation, more private initiative and investment and an awareness of the need to achieve yet better and better standards. I hope to take that work forward through the interesting days that lie ahead over the next 12 months.

Orders of the Day — Energy Conservation

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am glad to have this opportunity to say something further about my Energy Conservation Bill, which was first presented to the House as a ten-minute Bill on 24 February. I shall begin by briefly reiterating its main provisions. Its core provision is to require district and borough councils, after extensive public consultation, to draw up energy conservation plans for all domestic properties in their areas with the aim of achieving energy savings of 10, 20 or 30 per cent. The plans would assess the estimated reduction in fuel bills, the resulting reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and the cost of implementing the plans.
The relevant Secretary of State would set a date for the completion of the plans, which would be sent to him. He would then, at his discretion—I emphasise that—publish a timetable for the implementation of the plans and make arrangements for the funding. Local authorities would ensure that the works to bring about increased energy efficiency were carried out. Almost inevitably nowadays, they would do that in their role as enablers rather than as providers.
From that focused programme of activity, a whole range of benefits would flow. First, there would be environmental benefits. Under the Rio accord, the Government are committed to stablising carbon dioxide emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that that target will not bring about a stabilisation of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. To achieve that, the United Nations estimates that we need a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the near future. I repeat that the Government's commitment is to stabilise by the year 2000.
With 27 per cent. of the United Kingdom's CO2 emissions deriving from the domestic sector, a programme activated through my Bill could make a useful contribution. Of course, there would also be reductions in sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Other instruments will have to be brought into play, as well as the one proposed in the Bill. The Combined Heat and Power Association advocates a target of 6,000 MW from combined heat and power—treble the present level—by the year 2000. Will the Minister say tonight whether the Government would be prepared to adopt that target? However, I say that merely in passing, and I shall now return to my Bill.
In addition to the reduction in atmospheric pollution, health gains would result from the elimination of cold and damp in homes, and there would be subsequent savings in social security expenditure for health authorities. Landlords, both public and private, would gain through reduced maintenance costs, which would slacken the upward pressure on rents. Newark and Sherwood district council has made an efficient attempt at quantifying many of the savings.
The quality of life, especially for poorer families, would be significantly enhanced. Their energy cost savings would release additional spending power. Another important consequence of the measure would be job creation—in manufacturing, distribution and installation. That would, in turn, result in an improved tax take for the state and a reduction in unemployment and social security benefits —a virtuous cycle.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. At this hour, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that, as a general rule applicable to all substantive motions for the Adjournment, the subject to be discussed must not involve legislation, except by incidental reference. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in reminding the House, at this early hour, of the exciting prospect of his future legislation.

Mr. Dafis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance. I was not aware of that rule, but I shall studiously avoid reference to legislation from now on.
There has been massive support for the proposals in principle—there is room for modification. A total of 110 district and county councils have expressed support for them, and the range of other organisations to have done so is truly impressive. It includes environmental organisations, ranging from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, through to the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
Other supporters include the Institute of Housing, the Trades Union Congress, the National and Local Government Officers Association, the Gas Consumers Council and the National Housing and Town Planning Council. Significantly. the list also includes groups such as the Child Poverty Action Group, Age Concern, Help the Aged. the Disabled Living Foundation and the Right to Fuel Campaign. In addition, more than 350 Members of Parliament have registered their support for such proposals. either by signing early-day motion 1483 or by letter to me from organisations that support the measures. There is wide-ranging and impressive support for such proposals.
Both because of the programme's intrinsic merits and the overwhelming support. the Government must take seriously the proposals and the topic. That is particularly true in view of the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel—a measure announced after I presented my ten-minute Bill. The proposals have suggested that funds for energy efficiency programmes and works should be through a levy on electricity and gas bills. I am sure that such a provision would rightly be regarded as inappropriate. as domestic fuel is to be taxed.
The Government presented their proposal for VAT on domestic fuel partly as an environmental tax. Now, it is a sine qua non of environmental taxation that it should be recycled in some form to correct the environmental phenomenon that the tax is supposed to address. If a proportion of the VAT proceeds are recycled to meet the cost of a domestic energy efficiency programme, the Government's claim that VAT is an environmental tax would gain some credence and some of the hardship that VAT on domestic fuel will impose on the less well-off, the elderly and the disabled would be mitigated. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the Government have no plans for any major environmental legislation in the next Session.
I turn to some of the comments made by the Lord President of the Council in his reply to me and some of the supporters of my proposals. He referred to some of the Government's energy efficiency schemes and suggested that more could be achieved by encouragement than by

introducing a mandatory requirement for the drawing up of schemes. I say two things in reply. First, some of the Government's schemes, especially the home energy efficiency scheme—HEES—are laudable enough but too limited in scope. That is recognised by the managers of the HEES Neighbourhood Energy Action whom I have met and who support my proposals.
Secondly, the plans that would be introduced under my recommendations would provide a source of information and data that would maximise the effectiveness of, for example, HEES, whether at the existing expenditure level or an expanded version of it. In 1992, HEES incurred Government expenditure of £45 million. In the same way, schemes introduced by the Energy Saving Trust, which is one of the Government's instruments for bringing about energy savings and environmental improvements, would find the framework provided by the comprehensive plans envisaged in my proposals invaluable. Clearly, there is a need for a comprehensive account of the need for energy, the scope and opportunities for it and the means to bring it about.
The support of many local authorities does not indicate an unwillingness to accept mandatory responsibility. Local authorities accept that it is something that they can undertake as long as financial provision is made by the Exchequer to meet costs. The core of my energy efficiency suggestions is the information-gathering process. Plans involving information would enable the work to he prioritised according to social need and environmental impact to achieve maximum efficiency. It is acknowledged that that is lacking in the haphazard collection of schemes operated by the Government at present.
Once the plans have been drawn up and are in place, the Secretary of State could timetable their implementation according to what is realistic in budgetary terms and in keeping with the Government's policy and priorities. My proposals would not commit the Government to a massive investment programme from the beginning of the process, although a substantial investment would be more than justified and bring about great benefits.
Suggestions for modifying the proposals would be welcome, and some organisations have already committed themselves on them. For example, regional energy boards have been suggested. Perhaps that would be a superfluous tier, and other details of that suggestion have been criticised. The Government may have reservations about strengthening local authorities and giving them a more prominent function in the development of energy efficiency. However, housing and environmental health departments are uniquely qualified to carry out the kind of survey work involved in preparing plans. They would have a crucial role, but not necessarily as providers.
Contractors who currently deliver the home energy efficiency scheme for Neighbourhood Energy Action, would be well placed to carry out installations. Organisations such as TECs could stimulate interest and carry out the training programmes that would be necessary to implement such ambitious proposals.
There is no problem about making changes, but comprehensive provision for a radical improvement in domestic energy efficiency is crucial for environmental, social and economic reasons. My proposals attempt to describe how such provision might be made.

Ms Clare Short: I welcome the debate, but not the hour at which it is taking place. One of my colleagues who is no longer in the Chamber said that the best contribution that we could make to energy conservation would be to turn off the lights and go home. There is something in that, but our strange procedures require us to be here at this hour.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on the immense amount of work and commitment that he has put into the issue of energy conservation. Labour strongly favours such a policy, and many months ago we published our policy document on energy efficiency for the environment and the economy. It contains detailed proposals for a scheme for household energy conservation which would have an enormous number of benefits, and, unusually in social policy terms, they could be obtained at limited cost.
Such a policy would contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. We gave a commitment on that in Rio that must be met by the Government. I see in today's issue of The Times—today is still yesterday under the funny rules of the House—that the Secretary of State for the Environment is apparently about to announce proposals to increase energy conservation measures in business. I do not know whether the Minister will tell us anything about that. That is the first objective that would be met by Labour's scheme.
The second benefit of our scheme is enormously important at this time, because it would create thousands of desperately needed jobs that would enable people to cease relying on benefits and start making a contribution to their communities. That would also enable them to regain their independence and not have the humiliation of having to live on benefits.
Thirdly, it would help to solve the enormously serious problem of fuel poverty. Far too many of our citizens struggle from week to week to keep themselves and their children warm and to pay their bills. A serious programme of energy efficiency and conservation in households would help to relieve that poverty.
Fourthly, under Labour's proposals, the details of which I shall shortly present to the House, there would be no cost to the Exchequer because the scheme would be funded by requiring gas and electricity providers to invest in energy conservation measures and put on all the households that had been so improved a cost that would be less than the amount that was saved. In the long term, that would pay for the measures and create an incentive for energy providers to invest in energy efficiency. That would be better than their current incentive, which is to try to sell as much energy as possible, despite the damage to the environment and to people who suffer from fuel poverty.
Labour's proposals differ somewhat from those of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. He said that he was interested in any proposals that might improve on his. I hope that he has read our document: I feel that it has some advantages, although we have exactly the same objective.
Let me tell a story about my constituency that encapsulates the enormous benefit that can result from this kind of social policy. The Ladywood ward of my constituency contains many maisonettes and tower blocks that were built in the 1960s. They are very badly insulated,

with underfloor electric heating which was installed at a time when electricity was very cheap and was provided very inefficiently. Those blocks are now riddled with cold, damp and black mould; people often come to my advice bureaux bringing items of clothing covered in mould, and telling me about the number of times children suffering from asthma have been in and out of hospital. Evidence I saw a few years ago suggests not only that damp and cold heighten suffering from asthma and bronchitis, but that the spores in the mould damage children's lungs in the long term. The same story is told up and down the country.
In one block, Beale house, the tenants banded together rather than taking legal action individually against the local authority over the provision of unfit housing. They found a local solicitor, and acted collectively against the local authority—as citizens are entitled to do under existing housing legislation—on the ground that it had provided inadequate housing. They cited the damp and mould. They won their case in the first court: the local authority was ordered to improve the block and provide insulation and better heating.
Birmingham city council then had to decide what to do. It knew that if the case was upheld it would be bankrupt, given all the blocks and maisonettes in the city that were in a similar condition: much as it might have wanted to improve the heating and insulation in all those blocks, it had not the resources to do so. It told the Beale house tenants that it would appeal against the ruling, that the tenants could act collectively against the local authority, and that it would honour the victory of the tenants of that particular block.
The council got together with the Midlands electricity board to launch a programme of insulation in the block, and to install off-peak electrical heating. The results were truly wonderful. At that time—some years ago—a "hard to heat" allowance was still provided under DSS regulations; all the tenants receiving benefits received the allowance—which, of course, cost the Exchequer money.
The net result was the provision of jobs in an area of high unemployment. The block was insulated and equipment was installed—equipment that had been built in the west midlands. People's bills were reduced significantly. People were warmer, and had more hot water. Moreover, the Exchequer saved money because the "hard to heat" allowances were no longer required. That superb social-policy move brought benefits to the environment and individuals: it ended fuel poverty, and improved the health of my constituents' children.
The Labour party—and the hon. Gentleman's Bill, which we are not allowed to mention, but we can mention the suggestions that he has made tonight—proposes the adoption of such a policy on a national level. We should change the regulations controlling the providers of gas and electricity. The appointment of a regulator for the gas industry since deregulation has introduced some sensible provisions—for instance, the E-factor, which seeks to encourage energy efficiency in gas providers. However, there is no similar control on electricity providers.
As I said earlier, funding such investment through a premium on bills that was smaller than the saving that would come to individual citizens if we went for big packages of energy insulation would mean that the poor would be better off, no bills would go up, people would be warmer, there would be less fuel poverty and our carbon dioxide emissions would go down.
There would be no cost to the public sector borrowing requirement because the investment would be funded by private borrowing by the domestic fuel users. It is a wonderful scheme that would benefit everyone and would overcome many of the problems that the country faces.
It is shocking and surprising that the Government have not seriously considered the scheme and gone for it. In contrast, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said, the Government propose to impose VAT on fuel. That is an enormously unpopular proposal which will probably cost the Government the Christchurch by-election, and rightly so. Yet again the measure will bite most heavily on the poorest people in our country. That is the record of the Government since they took power in 1979.
The Government claim that the reason for the measure is protection of the environment. That is a bogus claim. Anyone who has scrutinised the proposal objectively knows that the imposition of VAT on fuel is a tax-gathering measure at the cost of some of the least well-off people in our country. Other measure are available to protect the environment if the Government were really interested. The remedy is energy conservation.
In case the Minister intends to repeat the disreputable allegations made by the Prime Minister about current Labour party policy on energy, let me say that we are, have always been and continue to be opposed to the proposal to impose VAT on domestic fuel. We are currently engaged in a consultation about our environmental policy. We have asked members of our party to consult with local communities about the current European Community proposals for a carbon energy tax. As the EC is putting the proposal to all the countries of the Community, and the proposal appears to be favoured by most countries except Britain, we have asked for the views of members of our party on it.
The Prime Minister misuses that consultation to suggest that the Labour party is in favour of VAT on fuel. That is simply untrue. I hope that the Minister will not attempt to pursue such disreputable and not entirely honest allegations at this late hour of the night.
We in the Labour party welcome the debate introduced by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and his proposals for an improvement in energy conservation. We recommend to him, to the Government and to everyone else the Labour party's scheme as being slightly preferable, more efficient and less bureaucratic than some of the details of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I do not say that in a negative spirit. We have the same objective. It is a question of how best to achieve it.
We deeply regret that the Government have gone for VAT on fuel. That will hurt those who are fuel poor in our country who are not in a position to and will be even less in a position to invest in energy-saving measures. We further regret that the Government, in their great programme of deregulation, propose to reduce the standards for insulation contained in the building regulations rather than improving them. We suspect that that is partly because the committee which is examining deregulation for the Government includes representatives of the building industry who, of course, give funds to the Tory party. We regret that.
Even at this late hour, I suggest to the Minister that the Government should take up proposals for energy conservation and energy efficiency which would benefit all of us at little cost to the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has given us a useful opportunity to discuss energy efficiency.
I wondered how long the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) would speak before she came clean on the Labour party's proposals for VAT on fuel. I thought that she sought to get her retaliation in rather early to explain away the most recent Labour party briefing which recommended an energy tax. The hon. Lady's protestation that Labour had never contemplated value added tax on energy would carry more conviction if it were not the case that a Labour party document published in 1990, "Looking to the Future", stated:
Proposals by the European Commission to remove the zero rating from Value Added Tax would impose new burdens on the poorest in our community.
The House ought to take careful note of the next sentence:
Zero rating on items such as food, fares, books and children's clothing should remain as an essential part of the VAT system.
No mention there of VAT on energy or domestic fuel. I have no doubt that Labour's draftsmen chose their words very carefully—just as the hon. lady did this evening, in seeking to claim that suggestions for some form of energy tax, as proposed in Labour News recently, were part of a wider consultation exercise among constituency parties.
At least the hon. Lady had the decency to turn up for this debate—unlike hon. Members of other parties.

Ms Short: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am sorry that, at 2.30 in the morning, the hon. Gentleman repeats dishonest allegations made in the House by the Prime Minister. The Minister knows very well that an old Labour party document stating, "We don't support"—

Mr. Baldry: I am not giving way to the hon. Lady—

Ms Short: I am sorry, but the Minister did give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has given way.

Ms Short: For the Minister to suggest that an old Labour party document saying that we did not propose the extension of VAT to items "such as" means that we were in favour of imposing it on domestic fuel is unreasonable and unworthy of him. The document to which the Minister referred is part of a consultation with party members as to their views on current EEC policy. May we please have an honest debate, not dishonest and misleading allegations?

Mr. Baldry: That was not worth giving way for, so I do not intend to give way to the hon. Lady again. I have no doubt that in the run-up to the last general election Labour party draftsmen chose very carefully the words to appear in "Looking to the Future". However much the hon. Lady protests, she cannot disguise the fact that that document specifically excluded any reference to VAT on energy. She cannot deny that Labour's most recent consultation document recommends that party members should use
Chris Smith's article to help you discuss the following questions: Economic Policy—In what ways can economic policy he developed to encourage environmental protection? You might consider Taxation Policy (e.g., energy tax…)".


Most people would rely on a reasonable interpretation of those words, and most people can understand plain English.
As I said, at least the hon. Lady had the decency to turn up to explain her party's policies—unlike Liberal Democrat Members. I am sad about that, because I wanted to ask them a few questions. I note that my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) are in their places. Liberal Democrats have been scurrying around parts of the country saying how monstrous it is that we propose to introduce VAT on domestic fuel. That is surprising given that only recently the Liberal Democrats produced a paper entitled "Costing the Earth—Liberal Democrat Policies for an Environmentally Sustainable Economy". All good stuff, one might think. It states:
Liberal Democrats advocate as a first priority the imposition of a tax on energy.
I wonder whether the Liberal Democrat candidate in Christchurch is explaining that to the local electors. The document goes on to say that
The United Kingdom is unusual amongst EC members in not applying even standard rates of VAT to domestic fuels … If it proved completely impossible",
say the Liberals,
to persuade our international partners to adopt energy taxes, we would nevertheless press forward, but phase them in at lower levels than otherwise—for example, by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel.
If a Liberal Democrat Member had bothered to turn up in the House this evening, I imagine that he or she would have sought to argue, as did the hon. Member for Ladywood, that that means something other than what it means in plain English. But in plain English, to end the zero rate of VAT on fuel means no more than that.

Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister address the suggestion that I made—that part of the proceeds from VAT, granted that that imposition is to be made, should be dedicated specifically to financing energy efficiency programmes?

Mr. Baldry: I noted the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and I shall turn to it in a moment. First, however, I want to deal with the question of VAT generally and the policies of the Opposition parties towards it. The hon. Gentleman made his policy very clear.
The Liberal Democrats go on to say:
we also recognise that the poorest income groups usually lack the capital required to invest in these items."—
meaning energy efficiency appliances.
Although we are clear that this problem must be addressed, we are equally clear that this must not" —
the word "not" is in italics, so that we all clearly understand that the Liberal Democrats mean "not"—
be achieved through granting exemptions to particular target groups; everyone must face the same incentives to use less and cleaner energy.
The Liberal Democrats do not even intend, therefore, to mitigate the impact of their VAT proposals for fuel—

Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: No, I am not going to give way.
They do not intend to mitigate the impact of those proposals on the most vulnerable members of society.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: No. The last time that I gave way to a Labour Member it was not worth doing so. I want to make some progress.
What is clear, therefore, is that the Liberal Democrats propose to introduce VAT on fuel and that they do not intend to grant exemptions even to the more vulnerable members of society. I hope that that is being explained throughout the country.
It should not, of course, come as a surprise to people in Dorset. As long ago as 1990, Liberal parliamentary candidates in Dorset made that clear. I have here the Dorset Evening Echo of 3 December 1990 in which the Liberal Democrat candidate for Dorset, South proposed that there should be VAT on domestic fuel.
I hope, therefore, that it is clearly appreciated that the Opposition parties would, if given the opportunity, impose VAT on fuel and that some of their protestations—

Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: —are unwarranted. If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that the Labour party had no intention ever of so doing, he will simply repeat what his hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said. If he wants to make another point, I shall gladly give way to him.

Mr. Martlew: I am surprised that the Minister did not give way before, but we have to be grateful for small mercies at this time of night. Can the Minister tell me where it is said in the Conservative party manifesto that the Conservatives were going to put VAT on fuel?

Mr. Baldry: It did not say in the Conservative manifesto, in terms, that we were going to do that. However, the point that I am making is that the Opposition parties made it clear that they intended to introduce VAT on domestic fuel. It does not lie in their mouths to deny that, to oppose VAT on domestic fuel or to suggest that, if they had the opportunity, they would not have introduced VAT on fuel as an energy efficiency measure.
The Opposition parties make a suggestion and they simply attack it when the Government introduce the proposal. It would be more honest and straightforward if Opposition parties and Opposition candidates on the hustings made clear where they truly stand on such proposals.
I do not intend to take up much more time because I sense that the House would like to make progress. I should like to respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North because he asked about energy policy.
The debate is timely because, in the past few days, the Government have published a consultation paper that sets out proposals for a national sustainable development strategy and proposals for completing the programme to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made those proposals clear in an announcement today.
Our sustainable development strategy will consider the state of the environment now and how it might change over the next 20 years on present trends. It will consider the way in which development in different areas of the economy can both harm and benefit the environment and ways in which we as individuals can promote the principles of sustainable development.
As I said, last week we published a consultation paper setting out our proposals on sustainable development. Indeed, we have led the field on sustainable development for several years by monitoring and reporting on our environmental policies. Since 1990, when we published our White Paper "This Common Inheritance", we have had an annual progress report on our environmental policies.
The key to our success has been in setting ourselves specific targets. Last year's report listed nearly 500 separate environmental commitments from Government Departments and other public bodies. We have already acted on the great majority of them and have committed ourselves to further action.
We have been at the forefront of international action to tackle the threat of climate change. We played a major part in brokering the framework convention on climate change in Rio last year, and we are committed to producing a national plan, setting out in full how we will meet our obligations under the convention by the end of this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced today our proposals for completing Britain's carbon dioxide programme. As no one referred to this earlier—perhaps because hon. Members had not realised that the Government had moved forward in that regard—let me briefly set out, for the benefit of the House, the elements of our proposals for completing our carbon dioxide programme.
We intend to strengthen the Energy Efficiency Office programmes of information and advice, to stimulate additional savings from industry, and to reinforce the work of the Energy Saving Trust to encourage households to use energy efficiently. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North called for that to happen, and it will happen through the Energy Saving Trust and we expect public sector bodies to provide a lead.
In addition, we intend further savings to be achieved in transport emissions and a further increase in the target for combined heat and power to 5,000 M W. That is a substantial increase. It may not be quite as much as the Combined Heat and Power Association would have liked, but it is a substantial move in that direction.
Earlier this year, we discussed widely our carbon dioxide programme. The issues that were discussed included the types of measures that the Government should take as part of the programme, and the role of other organisations and groups outside Government. Our view has been that an effective and efficient national carbon dioxide programme requires a partnership approach. We believe that our role is to provide the right fiscal, regulatory and financial framework for our programme to tackle carbon dioxide and to help to disseminate advice and information on the many actions that can be taken to achieve savings.
Decision makers in business and each and every one of us in our own homes throughout the country can take the action that will lead to lower emissions. We are looking to business groups, trade associations and voluntary and consumer groups to act as channels of information and encouragement.
Several measures have already been announced. They include those announced in the March Budget to increase the price of energy in domestic transport sectors, which I have already discussed, the establishment of the Energy Saving Trust to provide financial incentives to energy efficiency, and an increase in the objective for renewable

energy. Taken together, those measures are expected to stimulate savings amounting to two thirds of our national target.
Last week my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy announced his proposals for further renewable energy orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation in pursuit of the new objective for renewable energy. Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced a trial of local energy advice centres being conducted by the Energy Saving Trust, with finance from the Energy Efficiency Office—again, a measure that I hope will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and other hon. Members who are keen for energy efficiency to be promoted.
We have considered what additional measures should be taken to complete the programme. We have concluded that we should take further action to help business to make energy savings, so we shall strengthen the Energy Efficiency Office's programme of advice and information aimed at business, and we will discuss with business groups how to obtain the maximum response. Significant additional savings can be achieved in that sector. We recognise that public bodies should provide a lead, so we will be setting further targets for the Governments estate—that is, buildings in our control—which should take energy used by central Government down to well below 80 per cent. of 1990 levels by the year 2000, and looking to other public sector bodies to adopt similarly stringent targets.
We will also continue to provide information and encouragement to households to use energy efficiently, and we will increase the resources devoted to that, working with the Energy Saving Trust to reinforce the impact of the trust.
Concern has been expressed about the prospect of increasing transport emissions. We believe that it is reasonable to work towards further savings by the year 2000 over and above that which is expected to be saved as a result of the fuel duty increases that were announced in the March Budget. We also take the view that energy should be produced and delivered in a way that keeps carbon dioxide emissions at the lowest cost-effective level. consistent with our other environmental goals. That is primarily the responsibility of the energy industries. We will be working towards the achievement of 5,000 M W of combined heat and power capacity by the year 2000—an increase of 1,000 MW on our previous target.
The framework of our carbon dioxide programme is now in place. Many organisations have indicated their willingness to participate in the programme. We are substantially ahead of our international partners in meeting our programme for carbon dioxide emissions, and we look forward to their joining us so that, together, the international community can meet its obligations.
I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will consider the measures that we have already had in place for some time. For instance, I refer to the £60 million that we have been investing in the greenhouse demonstration programme; the best practice programme of the Energy Efficiency Office, which has been going on for many years; the home energy efficiency scheme, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute, and which provides grants to help to provide basic insulation measures and advice to low-income households; the promotion of the take-up of home energy labelling; our consultations on proposals to strengthen provisions in


the building regulations which set standards for the insulation of dwellings; and the setting up of the Energy Saving Trust, in partnership with British Gas and other energy providers to develop programmes designed to promote the efficient use of energy.
I hope that the House will accept that those measures, taken together, represent a comprehensive programme to promote energy efficiency in a manner that ensures that we can meet our international obligations and, at the same time, ensures our competitiveness.

Orders of the Day — Support Helicopters

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I welcome the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on the further development of the programme for providing efficient, up-to-date helicopters for our armed forces. Many hon. Members believe that they are crucial to the effective defence of our country. The debate refers specifically to support helicopters for the Royal Air Force.
I do not believe that I need to spend too much time arguing that it is necessary for us to provide such helicopters. Every indication suggests that modern warfare is increasingly becoming a matter of quick, positive response. Helicopters are an essential part of that reaction.
Whatever reductions it may be possible to make in our defence budget and that of other nations, there is no evidence that any power, major or minor, has decided that it is possible to reduce the requirement for and dependence on helicopters.
We have had experience of warfare in the south Atlantic and more recent experience in the deserts of Arabia. We pray not, but we could have experience of warfare in the mountains of Bosnia. Those theatres of conflict are immensely different, but it would not be possible for us to maintain our national interests in each one if the helicopter did not act as a main element in our operations.
We can move on from deciding whether we need to increase and develop our helicopter capacity for our armed forces to considering what kind of helicopter is needed for the support role undertaken by the RAF. We need a utility helicopter that is capable of a multiplicity of roles. If possible, we need a helicopter whose design relates closely to those used by other sections of the armed forces. That immediately brings to mind the decision of the Royal Navy to choose the Merlin version of the EH101 helicopter, which is built by Agusta of Italy and Westland of the United Kingdom.
I should declare an interest—and speak with pride—about the fact that my constituency is home to the Westland subsidiary of FPT Ltd. It is at the cutting edge of technology in the use of laminated substances for self-sealing petrol tanks and other containers that need to survive the kind of treatment to which they are subject in war.
The United Kingdom headquarters of IBM is also in my constituency. It is good to see the commercial expertise of that great international company involved in collaboration and co-operation with a British defence manufacturer. I take pride in that, too.
The EH101 is the only truly modern helicopter being developed in Europe which will be available within the period of need to our armed forces. That is why I suggest that the Minister puts it at the top of his procurement list for the RAF. This is not just another helicopter that one could purchase off the shelf anywhere else. It is designed for the needs of today and of tomorrow. It has the potential to meet the needs of our armed forces for many years to come.
I shall not go into the details of the aircraft's technical advantages over its most obvious rivals, but it would be sensible at least to list them for the benefit of those who


examine these matters closely. Apart from its Anglo-Italian design, the EH101 has certain technical advantages over all its competitors.
First, the design of the rotor blades is remarkable. That is the key to the technical efficiency of the helicopter. Nothing else flying either in Europe or America offers the same efficiency.
Secondly, allied to the efficiency of the rotors is the increased capability of the EH101 due to its built-in active control of vibration. Vibration is a major cause of wear in helicopters, leading to problems of maintenance and repair, which are in turn key factors in the immediate availability of an aircraft in wartime. The EH101 can measure and counteract the development of vibration, thanks to its careful original design.
With any aircraft being used intensively in war, there is a need to check on its efficiency and safety, both for the success of an operation and for the safety of the crew. Such monitoring of safety and usage has been applied later to some helicopters, but the EH101 is the first to have had the monitoring system built in from the start. The idea was that this is an essential: it should not be a boll-on afterthought.
I referred earlier to the different theatres of war in which our forces might be called upon to protect our interests. The EH101 has an enormous advantage over its potential competitors in that it has an all-weather capacity that is unsurpassed—indeed, unequalled—by any similar rotor aircraft. It means that it is an aircraft which can be used in weather in which helicopters would usually be grounded. Such arguments must be taken into account when we make a final decision.
We have a British product which is well ahead of its nearest competitor and which is already likely to be a world beater. When the Royal Navy announced that it would opt for the Merlin version of the EH101, Canada followed and placed an order for the naval version but also ordered some of the utility versions, which we are recommending for the Royal Air Force. It is clear that other countries are watching closely the decision to be taken by the Ministry of Defence. They are looking to see what decision the British take on British products. If we show confidence, the product will he a world beater in not only the military but the commercial sense. It will be something that we can promote with great enthusiasm.
I stress that the EH101 is not an expensive aircraft that we are trying to persuade the Minister to buy; it can be sold on the basis of value for money. If the Royal Air Force follows the Royal Navy and if, at some later stage, the Army also decided on a compatible helicopter to allow for flexible operations and the exchange of aircraft and spares in an emergency, not only would this helicopter remain excellent value, but its unit costs would be reduced. If the EH101 were the helicopter chosen across the armed forces, we would be getting an extremely good bargain. That should surely be kept in mind in the present economic circumstances.
I have sought to establish that we need a decision that the EH101 is the prime choice. The final question is, when should an order be placed? The answer is tonight. A decision should be taken here and now. We need a commitment that the EH101 is the Government's choice. We need the decision to be taken quickly so that it is possible to continue the development of this fine aircraft and move on rapidly to its production. We need immediate

confirmation, which will itself convince potential customers that they can place their confidence where we have placed ours.
We must express our confidence in the EH101 project. A great deal of money has already been spent on it. It is not an untried proposal but an aircraft available as the basic helicopter for our armed forces well into the next century. It is the ideal choice as a support helicopter for the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Even at this very late hour, I am pleased to take part in this important debate on support helicopters for the Royal Air Force.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on initiating the debate and on the way in which he set out the arguments for the EH101 utility helicopter to fulfil our defence forces' requirements for support helicopters.
I thank other hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, who signed the motion and therefore enabled this debate to be extended to three hours.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on his long-standing interest in the project. He has many potential subcontractors for the EH101 project in his constituency and he would have welcomed the opportunity to be here to participate in the debate, but unfortunately he has to visit the glorious Gloucester Regiment, which faces amalgamation. I believe that he must be there in time for reveille, so he is unable to be with us.
I should like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), whose constituency is the home of Westland, on supporting the EH101 project throughout. The saying that a politician's mind is conditioned by the state of his seat certainly applies to the right hon. Gentleman, but I have some difficulty in reconciling his support for the project with his views on the social chapter and his party's views on defence expenditure.
I put that point to him during our debate last Friday afternoon, but I was not satisfied with his response. He could not say which would cause the most damage to Westland's workers: the social chapter, with the additional burdens that it would impose on Westland as employers —Westland is very much against the social chapter—or the 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure that his party advocates. He did not say, and probably could not say, what the answer to those questions was.

Sir Jim Spicer: He is not here now.

Mr. Colvin: As my hon. Friend says, he is not here to answer, so we will continue to put such questions to him.
I have forgotten how many speeches I have made on defence matters, but in each I have made a plea for more helicopters. In April 1987, I thought that at last the Government had got the message, when the then Secretary of State announced that the Government would order 25 utility EH101 helicopters. We all cheered, but we are still awaiting confirmation of the order.
I note that the full title of today's debate is "Support helicopters for the Royal Air Force". I cannot boast a great constituency interest in the manufacture of the EH101, although I dare say that few constituencies do not have some aerospace content, but the Army Air Corps is


just up the road from my constituency and down the road from my home. I am well aware that it would dearly like to be flying support helicopters for the Army. That, in a sense, is another debate, and I do not think that we want today's debate to be side tracked into a discussion about who should fly support helicopters. Let us just accept that our armed forces need them and, for the sake of the debate, that the RAF will be providing the pilots and the air crews.
Each time I have made my plea for more support helicopters the circumstances have changed and the need has become more urgent. We saw the collapse of the Warsaw pact in 1989, and the so-called new world order, which has developed into new world disorder. We saw the peace dividend lead to the previous Secretary of State's introduction of "Options for Change". We saw the creation of new military structures—smaller but better is the new basis for our armed forces.
We are seeing a far greater role for United Nations operations, following the Secretary-General's paper "The Agenda for Peace" with more peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace-building operations. There are 17 United Nations operations around the world, and 25 potential flashpoints where hostilities could break out at any moment where our troops may need to be deployed.
As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom should be ready to participate where Britain's national interest is identified—anywhere in the world. In the new NATO structure, in which we are privileged to lead the rapid reaction corps, we have an important role to play. Under the new-look NATO structure, a British-dominated rapid reaction corps totalling between 70,000 and 100,000 men will train for quick deployment. That means having an air mobile division made up of British, German, Belgian and Dutch units, and a southern region division, probably under Italian leadership.
We must have the equipment to meet our new role, and our new obligations worldwide, and that means greater flexibility for our armed forces, and far greater mobility—two important principles of war. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, in his introduction to the recently published White Paper on the defence estimates for 1993, said:
improvements to our amphibious capability and the Army's anti-armour capability, and further investment in transport aircraft and support helicopters
were proposed. He at least has at last got the message.
There is no doubt that, in trying to meet our obligations in providing peacekeeping and intervention forces, the United Kingdom is not adequately equipped. The fourth report of the Select Committee on Defence for this Session homes in on the problem of mobility and helicopters. It draws attention to the fact that a number of capabilities have been prioritised in the focus on intervention forces, the principal ones being helicopters, which are playing an increasingly important role in support and combat.
Our report goes on:
A number of important choices remain to be made, notably on the choice of a support helicopter to replace the present fleet of ageing Wessex helicopters, and to complement the heavily stretched Pumas and Chinooks.
It draws attention to the fact that the RAF operates a fleet of 140 aircraft in all—Chinooks, Pumas and Wessex support helicopters. It concludes:

It is, however, doubtful whether MoD has sufficient helicopters to be able to perform the increased role that they envisage, and we are concerned at the apparent prevarication and lack of urgency with which the Minister is addressing this point.
That is the Select Committee's conclusion this year.
We can go back to 1989–90, when it said in its third report:
MOD's consideration of the requirement for support helicopters, and the way in which such a requirement should be met, stretches back to the mid 1970s and the matter needs urgent resolution.
And so we say again this evening.
Our report concludes:
We consider that the Ministry must face up to the fact that delay and inaction is becoming costly both in financial and effectiveness terms and that a decision on the way forward must be made immediately.
I do not think that I need to say more, but I shall none the less.
In United Nations operations, especially in Bosnia, there is a great need for support helicopters. The United Kingdom has had to send Sea King helicopters to Bosnia, presumably because we have run out of support helicopters. We have none to spare; they are all far too busy in Northern Ireland, where almost half of all our helicopter hours were flown in 1991–92 in support of our security operations.
No one disputes the case for more helicopters. We could probably manage with fewer tanks, but that is another debate. The question is which helicopter should the Ministry of Defence order. Apparently, we have to consider three options. I wonder whether that is genuine or whether there is really only one that we must consider seriously. Currently, the force consists of 32 Chinooks, 42 Pumas and 64 Wessex, making a total of 138 support helicopters. That includes those undergoing repair, modification or refurbishment.
There is certainly a case for commonality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North said. However, I should have thought that we could eliminate the Pumas —not because they are French, but because they are a very old design. They do not have the lift capability and they are too small. They carry only 12 men fully equipped; perhaps 16 not fully equipped. They do not have an adequate performance—the range is inadequate and they do not fly fast enough. They are a fair-weather aircraft, and my hon. Friend made the important point that we need a helicopter with all-weather capability.
The performance of the Chinook is not that bad. It certainly has good lift capability, and can carry 42 men in all. It has old technology and is not especially reliable. Indeed, it is notable that Chinooks are no longer used in support operations for North sea oil and gas exploration. It is certainly a costly aircraft—not so much in its unit cost, as Boeing Vertol have cut that to the bone to try to get orders, as in its life cycle costs, on which the MOD now rightly concentrates.
Even having got rid of all the amortisation, it still costs between £2,000 and £3,000 an hour to operate. That compares with £750 an hour for an EH101. It is obvious that the EH101 has a cost advantage. In fact, it only costs —I say "only", but it is still an expensive aircraft—about £12 million. One should also bear in mind the fact that the Chinook is an old design—30 years old—and needs midlife updates, which can be extremely costly. Those costs are presently estimated at between £4 million and £5 million.
We must not forget that all that expenditure occurs in the United States, so we pay for it in dollars and the work goes to American factories and workers. It has been the British Government's policy for many years to try to make the so-called two-way street of reciprocal sales and purchases with our American allies across the Atlantic more evenly balanced. The exchange is still 2:1 in favour of the United States of America, and to order Chinooks for the RAF would only make that two-way street more out of balance than it is already.
We might he able to justify the purchase of some Chinooks as so-called attrition buys to replace those that we have lost for one reason or another. We cannot justify buying a 30-year-old design when a new, modern technology aircraft is available. The RAF would not take that action were it considering the purchase of fixed-wing aircraft, so why does it even consider doing so when considering the purchase of helicopters?
Tonight we are considering the utility version of the EH101—EH stands for European Helicopters, which is a combination of Westland and Agusta. The commonality issue, which has been raised, is valid. The Ministry of Defence has already ordered 44 of the helicopters—the Merlin version—for the Royal Navy. It is important to have commonality with other countries within the rapid reaction corps, which I have mentioned.
The Italians, who belong to that force, are joint manufacturers, with Westland, of the aircraft. The Dutch, who are also in the unit, are keen on the project and have already, as a matter of defence policy, quoted a preference for buying more helicopters and fewer tanks. The all-weather capability is important in relation to the EH101, which does not ice up. That means that the big capability gap in helicopters has at last been closed.
We should not forget that Her Majesty's Government have already spent £1·3 billion on development of the aircraft—the air frames, the avionics and the engines. In all defence procurement it is important to consider the impact on Britain's industrial capability. There is no doubt that the helicopter would bring many jobs for British industry. It is estimated that 3,000 jobs would be created by the order for only 25 of the helicopters over three to four years.
The RTM322 Rolls-Royce engine is made jointly with Turbomeca of France—half the development goes to each country—which may improve the chances of the French looking to the aircraft as a better support helicopter than the Puma, as it has greater capability. That engine is already flying in the fourth preproduction aircraft.
The technological lead has been mentioned, and there is no doubt that the anti-vibration development—the active control structural response—means that the aircraft has great potential for civilian use. Those of us who have travelled in helicopters appreciate that vibration is one of the hazards. Undoubtedly, with a military version, the lack of vibration will have a significant bearing on the length of time that equipment on board lasts.
The sales potential of the EH101 is good. The Canadians have already ordered it for their navy, as well as the utility version. The middle east is certainly a big potential market. Japan is also a potential market. It is estimated that the market for the EH 101 is probably about 750 aircraft, so eventually there will be many jobs for British workers if worldwide sales achieve that target. We

await the stamp of approval from the British Government for the utility version of the EH 101. Surely that will be a great encouragement to other countries to order it.
Paragraph 122 of the defence White Paper, which is the section on the RAF's air transport and support helicopter fleet, says how vital the EH101 is to strategic and tactical mobility. It says that the RAF Chinook helicopters
are already the subject of a modernisation programme which will extend their lives well into the next century. We have been reassessing our requirement for support helicopters in the light of the changed strategic circumstances. We have concluded that, in view of the need for increased flexibility and mobility in the new operation environment, there is a need to procure additional support helicopters to supplement our existing assets. We are urgently considering how best this significant enhancement to our operational capability can be achieved.
Once more, we say "hear, hear" to that.
Timing is absolutely crucial. The Government cannot prevaricate any longer. We need to confirm the order for 25 EH101s and order a further 25 without delay.

Mr. Bruce George: The hon. Gentleman knows that I would join him in support if it did not disqualify me from my debate, which is next on the Order Paper. He explained why the Government had been prevaricating. Why has there been such a delay? Is it that the defence procurement budget cannot sustain such an imaginative and long-awaited approach, or is somebody on the military side in the MOD sticking the knife in?

Mr. Colvin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that interesting intervention. As far as those who take a special interest in defence matters are concerned, somebody in the Ministry of Defence seems to have it in for the EH101. I will not name names this evening—perhaps another hon. Member will be brave enough to do so. There is no doubt in the minds of those who have investigated the matter that the preference of the Royal Air Force is for the EH101 helicopter, so probably only one person is standing out against it at present. Perhaps if it were someone else in that position, it would be a much easier decision for the Secretary of State to make. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the position.
I hope that this is my last speech on the subject of the EH101 helicopter. I hope that the Minister has received the message loud and clear, and will appreciate that the order for these aircraft is one way to ensure that, in the words of the White Paper, we defend our future.

Sir Jim Spicer: It must be well over 10 years since my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and I started to raise the subject of the EH101 in the House. Most Conservative Members have been ardent supporters of the home-grown product, and in that we have had Opposition support.
This is a unique occasion because there are no fewer than six Conservative Members in the Chamber who all have a direct interest in the EH101 and the Westland factory. It is sad that the person with the greatest interest in Westland—for obvious good reasons—is not here to support his constituents. I speak of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrat party. Perhaps he has other fish to fry elsewhere. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey


and Waterside said, the right hon. Gentleman has always supported the cause, and perhaps it falls to me to speak on his behalf and on behalf of his constituents.
Westland has about 7,000 workers, and probably well over 1,000 of them live in my constituency. The Lords Commissioner to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who is in his place on the Front Bench, could probably lay claim to 700 or 800 of those workers. Other hon. Members who are present for the debate represent a substantial number of people who are directly employed by Westland.
However, that is only part of the total number, because all over the country and in—dare I mention it?—Christchurch, hundreds of subcontractors look to Westland for orders and, in particular, to the order for the EH101.
Over the years we have all shared a sense of frustration. I was with the management of Westland in Yeovil on the night that the agreement with the Italian Government was signed. We waited anxiously in case there was any slippage, and we wondered whether our Secretary of State for Defence had signed up and whether anyone would renege. There was a great sense of relief when, as a result of pressure, the agreement was finally signed. The co-operative agreement between us and the Italian Government and Agusta is unique.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has said, there was an agreement in 1987 to purchase the utility version of the EH101. We are not dealing with a public inquiry on the channel tunnel or Twyford down or with a bypass for Dorchester. We expect such inquiries to be long-winded because of the unbelievable democratic process. Public inquiries can go on for ever, but we are not discussing a public inquiry but an internal Ministry of Defence matter. It is almost unbelievable that we and the Westland work force are still waiting some six years later.
I accept that delicate balances sometimes have to be struck. I am reminded of the recent battle between Rosyth and Devonport. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who is to reply to the debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had to strike a balance and make a political decision. Day after day, they were bashed and bullied by those on both sides of the argument: the Scottish parliamentary lobby spoke for Rosyth, while the vociferous west country group spoke for Devonport.
There is no such conflict with the EH101. It is a straight choice. The EH101 is first and foremost a British product, built in conjunction with the Italians; it is a modern, well-designed, superlative helicopter that will see us well into the next century. There is nothing wrong with the Chinook, but it is a bit clapped out in terms of design.
I made my last parachute jump from a Dakota. I loved the Dakota—it was a marvellous aircraft—but it was designed in 1937–38, and we were still parachuting from it in 1957–58. That does not detract from it, but when we have the opportunity to buy a really modern helicopter, for God's sake let's get on with it. There is 100 per cent. support for it in the House and the country. If my hon.
Friend the Minister told the House, "We have made this political decision", he would have the wholehearted support of hon. Members and the country.
Westland holds a unique place in the affection of our people. I have known and worked with the company for just over 20 years; it must be said that some 20 years ago it was not quite the company that it is today. What has happened to the work force and the factory over the past seven or eight years is almost unique: it is now a lean, fit company, producing a magnificent helicopter. I can only say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside suggested, it is high time we recognised that. By placing this initial order, we could trigger a potential order for 750 aircraft.
There has been some mention of where the opposition to the order lies. I do not know, and I do not much care; what I know is that we cannot pretend for much longer that we have a genuine air-mobile capability if our air-mobile force does not contain enough helicopters to warrant naming a brigade or division as air mobile.
This is not the time to discuss relative helicopter strengths. However, whether we look at the United States, the Germans or the French, we find that every country that has adopted an air-mobile role has provided sufficient helicopters. Only two weeks ago, in the debate on the estimates, I said that it was time for us to face up to the conflict—not that there is a conflict any longer—between the tank and the helicopter. We all know that the number of heavy battle tanks will be reduced dramatically: we must move to an air-mobile role, and we cannot do that without the EH101.
I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to stand up and, diplomatically—as I know he will—make it clear to the isolated pockets in the Ministry of Defence that may oppose the placing of the order that we will not put up with that any longer. It has to be a political decision. It would be welcomed by everyone in the country. The sooner that that decision is made, the better it will be for the work force at Westland and for everyone on this side of the House.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I join in the congratulations given to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on his success in securing the debate. I also confess a touch of nostalgia to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer). I am perhaps a little older than I look, but my first flight was in a Dakota and I have a great affection for that aircraft.
I have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because many of my constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West, work at Westland. They are represented at all levels, from the chief executive, who is my constituent, to the shop floor. My hon. Friend mentioned the social chapter. There is deep anxiety about the effect that the social chapter would have on Westland's costs. It is worth passing that message through to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I concede that he has been a great supporter of the EH 101 project, but I hope that he will bear in mind some of the comments that have been made in the House about the social chapter.
The continuing success of Westland group is important to the south-west, which has seen a great contraction in the defence industries. That has served to heighten the impact


of the recession throughout the region. As our armed forces seek to take their support helicopters into the next generation, Westland has produced in conjunction with Agusta the next generation helicopter, which is the only one of its type.
Already the Government have ordered the Merlin variant of the EH101 for the Royal Navy, but there has been overlong delay in implementing the original decision of Lord Younger when he was Secretary of State for Defence in relation to the Royal Air Force.
I should like to dwell on the jobs aspect and the technological advantages of the EH101, which I believe are clear. It has a unique all-weather capability and long-range operational potential, together with innovations to remove vibrations from the cabin. That demonstrates its advance over the present generation and places the aircraft at least seven years ahead of any possible rival. It fits precisely with the requirement of "Options for Change", namely, rapid reaction capability, which is so vital in this era of flexible response.
The EH101 would be an asset in not only military operations but humanitarian exercises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said. The requirement to take part in humanitarian exercises is increasingly prevalent, as we were reminded by the United Nations Secretary-General's "Agenda for Peace". It is perhaps no coincidence that an earlier three-hour debate in the Chamber this evening was about the former Yugoslavia. The Sea King helicopter is playing a significant role in that very operation. If we look to the future, we can see the EH101, with its adaptability, playing an important humanitarian role.
I have no doubt that recent international events have served to highlight the fact that the Government's decision in 1987 to support the EH101 project was correct. The only competition in sight seems to come from overseas, either in a possible lower capacity helicopter, which is only on the drawing board at present, or in old technology aircraft such as Chinook or Puma. Replacements for old technology aircraft will inevitably be sought sooner or later by their producers, but with some considerable delay compared with the availability of the EH101.
In this efficiency-conscious era, it is important to seek commonality across our helicopter fleet, and the EH101 provides an opportunity to do that. With the Royal Navy using anti-submarine warfare, airborne early-warning and commando helicopters; the RAF using support, combat, research and rescue helicopters; and the potential for the Army and the Royal Marines to perform a variety of functions with a support helicopter, standardisation of the United Kingdom defence force fleet would bring obvious and varied advantages.
Cost is an important ingredient. The price for the utility EH101 is more competitive now, bearing in mind the technological advances that it embodies and the reduction in through-life costs that it offers compared with previous generations of helicopters. Also, I understand that Westland has offered to reduce the initial procurement price of both the Merlin and utility variants if the RAF order is placed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that in mind. I thank him for his forbearance in recent weeks. Although I am new to this subject, I cannot help feeling that when my hon. Friend sees me coming down the Corridor, he thinks, "My goodness—here comes another support helicopter."
The EH 101 adds up to a convincing case for a British

product which will be at the forefront of technology, and which can succeed in the intensely competitive overseas defence market. Success depends on winning overseas orders. The RAF order confirmation would not only add to the Government's seal of approval but would be a welcome fillip to the overseas saleability of both the military and civilian version.
Continuing indecision has made the battle to win orders more difficult than it might otherwise have been. The time must be right to put an end to that uncertainty. The estimated worldwide sales potential for 750 aircraft has a consequential spin-off worth at least £8 billion to this country—apart from orders that could develop in the United States.
Westland has a unique product that can exploit a considerable gap in the world market at a time when other manufacturers are not ready to fill it. The RAF needs support helicopters. When it comes to exports, success at home breeds success abroad. So there is common purpose, and one that will provide much-needed jobs throughout the south-west.
The necessary decision should not be further delayed. It would be welcome in not just Somerton and Frome but Christchurch, where there is a Westland facility that would benefit from the order. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do his best to ensure that a decision is made at the earliest possible opportunity.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I thank the large number of my hon. Friends who signed an application to the Speaker for this debate, and I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) who interrupted his holiday plans to introduce this debate on precisely the right note, which was maintained by my other hon. Friends.
We are here to endear ourselves to my hon. Friend the Minister at 10 minutes to four in the morning, and I hope that our diligence will be rewarded. I know that the Minister will not want us to speak for too long, as he has other things to do. It was good of him to come here to answer the debate, which I hope he will find persuasive.
I, as a matter of principle, support the theory that it is not for politicians to support one product or another when it comes to its adoption by the armed forces. However, for various reasons, that has become the practice in recent times, when the items concerned are competing domestically within the United Kingdom for the attention of the procurement division of the Ministry of Defence.
As has already been pointed out, this is not one of those occasions. It is not a question of either Rosyth or Plymouth; it is a question of our helicopter being, without any doubt, the item. There is no technical rival to it in the world. It is clearly a question of money and of subversive pressure being exercised within the Ministry of Defence, which we must ask our Ministers to overcome by the sheer logic of the argument.
For many years there has been a fundamental flaw in the acquisition of support helicopters for the British Army. They have been provided by the Royal Air Force. During the short time that I was in the Ministry of Defence, I sought to make that point. Subsequent to my departure, an inquiry was conducted. I am afraid that the lobbying


and politicking that went on resulted in no change to that basic policy but, as has already been said, this is neither the time of night nor the place to go into that matter.
If we give one service responsibility for another service, inevitably that service will put its own service requirements and its own service priorities before those of the other service. Once again, this has been shown to be the root cause of the difficulty.
Nobody has suggested that the next fighter aircraft for the Royal Air Force should be a 30-year-old design, or that the RAF should consider buying second-hand aeroplanes from the French, so why should the RAF do that when it comes to helicopters? The truth of the matter is that the RAF does not care. The helicopters are not for the RAF; they are for the Army. This is clearly seen to be a matter of prejudice within the RAF. I hope that the Minister will either deny that allegation or deal with it in due time.
I heard a rumour that, despite the obvious decision, the RAF had said, "Let us re-write the specification." After all this time, that is so obviously and clearly a deliberate delaying tactic that I hope it will be seen for what it is.
The cost of the original item is an important issue. No one has suggested that the EH101 is a particularly cheap aircraft but, as has rightly been pointed out, it is a reliable one. Those of us who have used machinery, in whatever way and in whatever form it may have come, know that it is no good having something cheap if it does not work and that it is worth paying for quality, design and a modern device.
The fact that the Royal Navy has already ordered this aircraft, though a slightly different version, leads me to believe that there must be huge cost benefits in getting together with the Royal Navy, in terms of both spare parts and training, but I am far from convinced by what I have heard that these cost benefits are being taken into account, because there is no machinery for so doing. Each service does the costing for its aircraft. That, too, will, I hope, be taken into account. The aircraft's all-weather capacity, for example in respect of the former Yugoslavia, is also important. We have sent troops into the former Yugoslavia and we have apparently had to borrow Royal Navy helicopters because there are simply not enough RAF helicopters. That is an appalling situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), in an excellent speech in which he covered all the technical points that apply to the argument, said that he had been making speeches about helicopters for many years. I have been doing the same. For year after year, we have pointed out the absolute requirement for more helicopters, and particularly for those of a general purpose and utility nature.
I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats have been unable to field someone to participate in the debate. However, it is acknowledged that there is all-party agreement on the issue in the House. When my hon. Friend returns to the MOD, I hope that he will take a very clear message from this debate. Although I have a Westland plant in my constituency and most of us have some interest in Westland and its sub-contractors, there is a basic defence argument that promotes this helicopter beyond all others. As I said at the beginning of my speech, that must be the parameter on which defence equipment is chosen.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to put down very swiftly the counter-arguments that have been raised for entirely the wrong reasons. I hope that he will acknowledge that this is the best helicopter for the armed forces, that it should be purchased, that that purchase should start forthwith, and that that message should go out to our friends and allies who will also consider purchasing the helicopter when they see the confidence that should so rightly be placed in it by the RAF.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on securing this debate. He said that it was the Adjournment debate. Unfortunately, it is not. I have the Adjournment debate, which will take place at 8 am. The hon. Gentleman will understand if I am brief.
I have just come from the Tea Room, where we saw one of the famous Westminster mice. However, before that, I smelt a rat. It is a pity that the Liberal Democrats were not here to see it. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) pointed out the Christchurch factor. I will be the first person to congratulate the Minister tonight on announcing the order for the 25 EH101s.
Many of us have been involved in politics for a long time. I recall the Labour party once being accused of building the Humber bridge in order to win a by-election. I think that that accusation was made by Conservative Members. I am sure that the Minister is going to announce the project tonight. It is not often that we have such a noble array of knights of the shires on the Conservative Benches at 4 am. They know, and I know, that the Minister has decided that two days before the Christchurch by-election would be a good time to announce the project.
The EH101 is an excellent aircraft which has always been supported by the Labour Benches. It is a pity that it has taken the Government more than six years to confirm that it is to be built. According to my notes, Lord Younger was only Mr. Younger—he had not even received his knighthood—when, in April 1987, he announced his intention to replace the Pumas with 25 utility versions of the EH101 in preference to the Chinooks. He said:
The choice will build on the investment that we have already made in the naval version, and reflects our policy on European helicopter collaboration."—[Official Report, 9 April 1987; Vol. 114, c. 470.]
That was the position in 1987. It has taken a by-election in Christchurch to announce the project. We are pleased that a sinner repents, and I am sure that that will be welcomed in the west country.
In the spring, I went to the Westland factory at Yeovil. It is an excellent facility. The craftsmanship was fine, the management were fine, and there was great co-operation between the trade unions and the management. I was very disappointed to hear tonight that they were against the social charter. It would not seem to have an effect on such a good employer as Westland. Perhaps that is more to do with politics than with industrial relations.
As hon. Members have said, the situation with regard to support helicopters is desperate. It is not just one person in the Ministry of Defence, even if that person is suspected of being high up in the chain of command. I have talked


to several senior RAF officers over the past 18 months. There is no doubt that they are lukewarm about the helicopter.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) mentioned that the pilots also fly helicopters for the Army. That situation is not satisfactory, and it has to be tackled. That is why we are in such a plight with our helicopters. In the past, the Army wanted more tanks, the RAF wanted more Tornados, and the number of helicopters suffered. Now, in the new ball game, we do not need as many Tornados or tanks, and we do not have any helicopters. That is nonsense. The Conservative Government have been in office for the past 14 years, so they must take the blame for the present situation.
The Minister's announcement will save jobs. I record my disappointment that no Liberal Democrats are present. They are probably in Christchurch gathering votes. The Minister is in the Chamber gathering votes We will welcome the Minister's announcement. It is a pity it has taken so long.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on his good fortune in securing this debate, which the House and the Government regard as a subject of prime importance. My hon. Friend said that support helicopters are essential to the future of our armed forces. I certainly concur in that judgment.
I recognise that this nocturnal debate, polite and even-tempered though it has been, symbolises the rising political temperature of the subject. I am aware that a large number of hon. Members have signed the motion which led to the debate. I am aware also that, in recent months, many more hon. Members have tabled parliamentary questions, written letters on the subject, and even, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) said, forcefully buttonholed Ministers in the corridors. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) summed up the matter when he eloquently spoke of his feelings of "frustration" at the seemingly endless twists and turns over the long delays that have characterised this matter. I understand his and other hon. Members' strong feelings.
The saga of support helicopters for our armed forces has been Wagnerian in its length and Shakespearean in its complexity. Many of my hon. Friends would like the saga to be brought to a glorious conclusion tonight, with the equivalent of the crashing chords of the entry of the gods into Valhalla or the speech of Henry V at the siege of Harfleur. In commercial terms, that would mean the announcement of an order. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North said that he was expecting an order tonight.
That phrase seems to have sent the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) into orbit. In his political excitement, he has smelt a by-election rat. He thinks that it is the Tory card to win the Christchurch by-election. The hon. Gentleman's sense of smell is characteristically misplaced. What we have heard tonight is the familiar sound of the Labour party harking up the wrong tree.
This is a serious and important subject. I understand the impatience that has been expressed by my hon. Friends, and I recognise the formidable political pressure

that has been exerted by all parties on this issue. I noted in particular the telling quotations from the Defence Select Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) reminded the House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), a former Defence Minister, reminded us, this is, above all, a defence issue. Such issues are always subject to careful consideration and deliberation. I am sorry to say that tonight I will not announce an order for helicopters, but I will signpost the way ahead and give my hon. Friends some encouraging and hopeful signs in response to the good points that they have raised.
As my hon. Friends reminded the House, the starting point for the debate was the announcement in 1987 by the then Secretary of State for Defence, my noble Friend Lord Younger. He declared that the Government had an intention to place an order for 25 utility EH101 support helicopters. He made it clear, however, that that was subject to the resolution of contractual and other issues.
Since 1987, we have witnessed dramatic changes in the strategic environment. The Warsaw pact has collapsed and the former Soviet Union now belongs to the history books We have made great progress in establishing mutual trust between ourselves and our former adversaries.
At the same time, the release of tensions previously restrained under the old cold war structures has made the world, in some respects, a less stable and less certain place. We must now look beyond the possibility of a static conflict in the central region.
We now require a much more flexible approach. That word was used in many speeches tonight and I accept its importance in relation to support helicopters. The linear battlefield has become a thing of the past, and we must look towards equipping our armed forces so that they are adaptable and mobile.
Against that background of change, it was only right that we should reassess our requirement for support helicopters—just as we have had to reassess our requirements for all aspects of our defence capability. "Options for Change" remains the foundation for such assessments, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear in the 1993 defence White Paper "Defending our Future", it is important that we retain the ability to respond and adapt to a fluid strategic situation. Accordingly, my right hon. and learned Friend announced in "Defending our Future" that we plan to introduce a number of additional support helicopters to our existing fleet.
A great deal of work has been necessary to establish the new requirement for support helicopters. We have in particular been looking at the nature of the tasks that our future support helicopter fleet is likely to perform. I am conscious that this process has taken some time. Some of my hon. Friends would say that it has taken too much time. I am pleased to say, however, that we have now completed our reconsideration of the requirement. We are now addressing the next step—the procurement strategy.
The main conclusion is to confirm that our current support helicopter fleet is not large enough to carry out the tasks that will be assigned to it under the concepts of operations which are being developed to meet the defence roles of our forces. The Army's new role in the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps is just one of the developments which has led to an increased demand for support helicopter capability. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside was right to draw attention to


that dimension of the argument. We have therefore assigned support helicopters a high priority within the overall defence programme, and we have made substantial financial provision within the forward programme for the procurement of additional helicopters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North referred to the fact that this is the age of peacekeeping. The field Army's requirement in this new age insists on greater mobility and flexibility. The requirement for support helicopters can be broadly broken down into two areas. First, we must look towards meeting the requirement for more helicopters to support field Army, providing it with the increased flexibilty and mobility that it now requires. Secondly, we need to address the problems posed by the limited performance and capabilities of our existing Wessex fleet.
I will not go into detail here about the options for the Wessex. It would be helpful for the House, however, if I set out the considerations facing the military strategist and planner in the new strategic environment of the last decade of the 20th century and beyond.
First, there is likely to be a requirement to project force over greater ranges. Ranges between points of disembarkation and the forward operational area may be considerable, and sometimes much more demanding than previous central region logistic requirements. For example, during the Gulf conflict, the distance from A1 Jubayl to the field force maintenance area in Saudi Arabia was 300 km, with the tactical assembly areas a further 150 km beyond. Or, as another up-to-date peacekeeping example, it is a day's journey by road or track from Split harbour and airport to the base of the British UNPROFOR battalion in Bosnia, but only one hour by helicopter.
Secondly, Army operations may be conducted in areas with a much less developed communications infrastructure than was the case in the central region. Thirdly, operations on a more fluid and less dense battlefield will require greater support helicopter mobility and reach.
A more capable and versatile support helicopter force is therefore needed for military activities across the spectrum of conflict, which may range from peacetime support operations to major ACE rapid reaction corps deployments and high-intensity operations.
A support helicopter may seem a fairly straightforward piece of equipment at first sight, but the view of support helicopters as the airborne dumper truck of the battlefield is an over-simplistic one. There are, in fact, a great many operational, technical and contractual matters that have to be resolved in order to get the right kit into the hands of our forces. Needless to say, this has to be done in a way that achieves best value for money—not only for the taxpayer, but also for the forces themselves, so that they derive the maximum capability from what is inevitably a finite defence budget.
Because these calculations are so important, we must be sure that we get them right. With the best will in the world, this takes time. It may therefore help the House if I give an insight into some of the factors that we have to take into account.

Mr. Martlew: indicated dissent.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Member for Carlisle shakes his head, as though these things did not matter, but they are serious, and I am sorry that he is not interested in them.

Mr. Martlew: The Government have had since 1987 to make these calculations, yet the Minister comes here to tell us of more delay.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is still excited about the Christchurch by-election. Like Harold Wilson, he is a man whose vision is limited to tomorrow's headlines. I am trying, at this thoughtful nocturnal hour, to take the House into the Government's confidence and to outline the factors involved in reaching the decision to which all thoughtful people want to move quickly—but it must be the right one.
First, there is the straightforward question of lift. There are some loads that, either for physical or operational reasons, cannot be broken down beyond a certain size. Indeed, some, such as artillery pieces or Land Rovers, are so large that they have to be carried as underslung loads. We thus have an unavoidable requirement for a certain minimum number of very large helicopters—I shall return later to the way in which our present fleet meets this requirement. But most of our loads are divisible and are thus liftable by a number of different helicopter types.
At first sight, one might be led intuitively to suppose that the most economical way of carrying this balance would be with a smaller number of larger aircraft, much as it is cheaper and quicker to move house with a single large removal lorry rather than with innumerable car loads. If lift were the only concern, this analogy might have some validity. But for support helicopters, there are other considerations: flexibility, survivability, maintainability and through-life costs. Flexibility, for example, is of particular concern. This is achieved largely through having a greater number of helicopters. It may in some circumstances be operationally advantageous to have a larger number of smaller helicopters, even where that results in lower overhaul lift for a given investment. Needless to say, this greater number of smaller helicopters would be an economic proposition only if the smaller helicopter were significantly cheaper than the larger helicopter.
We also have to consider the configuration of the helicopter itself. The ability to carry underslung loads is significant, although it is preferable from the point of view of agility and vulnerability to carry loads inside wherever possible. The capacity to carry fully-laden troops and bulky internal loads is important, as is the ability to load them on and off quickly. For this, a rear ramp is essential. That is one advantage of the EH101. Another factor is the aim of not having too many eggs in one basket. A balance has to be struck between the attraction of retaining operational coherence with large loads and the operational consequences of losing such a load.
The survivability of the helicopter depends on three factors: first, the ability to fly with sufficient agility close to the ground to avoid being seen; secondly, the size of target that is presented, both in conventional and radar and infra-red terms; and, thirdly, the ability to withstand a hit through, for example, the duplication of certain essential flight systems. Clearly, most of those factors are influenced by size, although others could be expected to feature more strongly in a modern design.
Reliability is another important factor in operational and financial terms. The consequence of breakdowns during operations is self-evident, especially in the later phases of a prolonged battle. Reliability also influences the number of aircraft needed to maintain a given establishment in peacetime. The more reliable a particular type, the fewer helicopters we have to buy to maintain a particular establishment size.
The final factor is ease of maintenance and low through-life costs. We see great attractions in the latest form of health and usage monitoring system, known as HUMS. HUMS monitors wear and tear on a continuous basis, thus enabling just the right amount of work to be done at precisely the right time. When taken with the ease of access and the maintainability of modern designs, it clearly contains the cost and deployment of spares and support staff.
I hope that I have given the House a flavour of the complex analysis which has to be undertaken to find the best way forward. Some of the debate has centred around the two main contenders, the Chinook and the utility EH101. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said. It is a difficult comparison as, to some extent, the Chinook and the utility EH101 are like apples and pears. They are two very different aircraft, with very different virtues.
The Chinook clearly has the larger lift capability and there are therefore some tasks that only the Chinook is capable of performing. Our Chinooks have given excellent service, and the fleet is now undergoing a mid-life update which will increase its viability and extend its life. We expect to gain many more years of service from this helicopter. However, the Chinook will never match every feature of a newer generation helicopter such as the EH101.
So far, my Department has invested about £1·4 billion in the development of the EH101. It is primarily in support of our procurement of the Merlin anti-submarine warfare variant, but it included the airframe which is, of course, the essence of the utility version.
We are well pleased with the progress of the Merlin and we have no doubt that the utility version will be a thoroughly reliable modern helicopter, possessing all the features that one would expect of its generation.
Several of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, mentioned the fine technical qualities of the EH101, such as its vibration control, the advanced design of its rotor blades and its unsurpassed all-weather capacity. They and a number of advantages that have been so well championed by its manufacturers, Westland, will of course be taken into account, as will the industrial factors of which some of my hon. Friends spoke so eloquently. We shall also bear in mind the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North to the effect that Westland held a unique place in the affections of his constitutents and many others across the country.
One or two of my hon. Friends mentioned the export potential of the EH101. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome spoke of an £8 billion export potential. I assure my hon. Friends that I am very conscious of the EH101's considerable potential in that respect, and I congratulate Westland on its success last year in winning an order for 50 EH101s from the Canadian Government. My Department, and specifically the

Defence Export Services Organisation, will continue to give the company every support in pursuing other export prospects.
There is currently an export prospect in Holland. I have had constructive and comprehensive discussions with my Dutch counterpart, and the two Ministries of Defence have exchanged detailed information about their requirements. At a recent meeting, I took my Dutch counterpart through our thinking in some detail. Hon. Members will appreciate that those discussions on a Government-to-Government basis must remain confidential, but I can assure my hon. Friends that we have done our best to be helpful in this and all other export cases.
I have tried to summarise the wide panorama of points and interests that this helicopter decision encompasses. I hope that I have fairly summarised the nature of the decisions that we face. There is no doubt that we have a requirement for additional medium support helicopters. The characteristics that we seek are varied, reflecting the range of operational scenarios that we now face. The world is certainly a different place from the days of 1987. We need the flexibility, familiarity and dependability of a proven aircraft and the benefits of reliability and survivability that are promised by a modern design. We need lift capability and agility.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend deal with the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) on the specification of the EH101? My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State confirmed before the Select Committee that the EH101 meets the Ministry of Defence's required specification. Will the Minister confirm that that is so?

Mr. Aitken: I can confirm that. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we have looked at this very carefully, and the EH101 meets the specifications that we have laid down.
Although the specifications of the Chinook and of the EH101 are fine, there is no perfect solution to the catalogue of requirements that I have outlined. There would seem to be clear operational support attractions in a mixed fleet solution as well as the industrial advantages to which many hon. Members have drawn attention, but the prices quoted by the manufacturers will be crucial to our choice. I cannot stress this latter point too strongly. I was very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned it in a passage of some eloquence. Overall value for money is the key. I shall certainly be delighted to see him coming down the corridor if he brings me further news of price reductions from any manufacturer.

Sir Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that there must be value for money, but one manufacturer has been producing helicopters for the past 30 years and is determined to dominate the world market. It might be prepared to enter into unfair competition with the aim of destroying the opponent's capability of breaking into its potential market. Surely there comes a point when price ceases to be a factor, and we have to bear in mind the national interest.

Mr. Aitken: Of course we bear in mind the national interest, and, although my hon. Friend is right to signal some anxiety on this point, we in the Ministry of Defence were not born yesterday. Any manufacturing company


whose product has had a long run could, towards the end of the run, offer a much cheaper price—my hon. Friend calls it an unfair price, but it would be a much cheaper price—compared with a company that is bringing on the newest technology just after development. As I tried to say earlier, not just in product but in price one would to some extent be comparing apples and pears. I did not use the phrase "financial price" so much as "value for money", which is the key calculation. I was simply stressing that, in the final judgment, overall value for money is the key to procurement decisions.
We are now in the last stages of our studies and deliberations. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare spoke with all his experience as a former Defence Minister of delaying tactics by service interests. I assure him that Ministers have gripped the issue firmly and are determined to move forward speedily. We are well aware of the urgency of the matter and of the urgency of our forces' requirements. We are also aware of the industrial case, which has been made so well tonight.
I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Carlisle by not being able to make an announcement on the way forward before the recess. I assure the House that we hope to make a further announcement soon.

Orders of the Day — Private Security Industry

Mr. Bruce George: I had thought of apologising to the Minister for detaining him at this late hour, but, on mature reflection, I concluded that his colleagues and predecessors at the Home Office had been detaining me since 1977 over the introduction of a regulatory or licensing system for the private security industry. Therefore, I feel slighly less guilty about keeping him up late, or dragging him in early.
I presume that my speech will be as unsuccessful as the speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House in the last debate. They have been campaigning for five or six years so they have some time to catch up with my abortive campaign. My speech will not be one, as might have been anticipated, bashing Group 4 Total Security; nor shall I be nasty to the Home Secretary. Others have done that far more successfully than I have over the past couple of days, so I shall not add to his misery.
My interest in controlling the private security industry goes back to the 1970s. The first Member of Parliament who, to my knowledge, raised the issue of control and licensing of the private security industry was the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I see from "The Times Guide to the House of Commons" that the Minister who is to reply was his Parliamentary Private Secretary some time ago. The right hon. Gentleman, now the chairman of the Conservative party, has continued his interest in the private security industry as a non-executive director of Group 4, an interest which is well known and clearly declared. His interest was sustained, but not in seeking legislative change.
I recall, when I started my campaign in 1977, a senior figure in the industry, having seen parliamentarians displaying but not always sustaining an interest in licensing, asked me whether I was a "flash in the pan". A decade and a half later, I am still plugging away, still facing this impenetrable wall of bureaucratic and political inertia in the Home Office. One day, maybe that will change.
I have a non-pecuniary interest to declare. I am a patron of the Institute of Security Management. Other people in another place have campaigned for many years alongside me. Regrettably, two of those stalwarts have died—Baroness Phillips and Lord Ted Willis. I pay tribute to what they did.
Who is opposed to the eminently sensible and logical plan to regulate the private security industry, an increasingly important industry? Many other countries have concluded that one cannot allow a free market to develop without some regulation. The Home Office is opposed to such plans. Some big captains of the private security industry are opposed, and some of the criminal classes are opposed because it would make it more difficult for them to find lucrative employment in an industry that is open to entry by them.
The Home Office is opposed because, basically, it is anti-regulatory and there is a profound philosophical indifference to my argument for a licensing authority. However, many countries deeply committed to the free enterprise ethic do not see regulation of the private security industry as inimical to the free market. One would not call the United States a bastion of socialism, but most of its states have some form of regulatory system.
A recent report prepared by the Dutch Ministry of Justice on the European private security industry has been used by European employers and Euro-Fiet, a federation of European trade unionists, as a basis for discussion on the licensing and regulation of the private security industry across Europe. The report concludes:
Britain is the only country (of the 18 countries surveyed) without any legislation.… In most European countries there is some form of legislation.… A notable exception is Great Britain. In all European countries except Britain authorization requirements and operating conditions are imposed.
But not, I emphasise, in this country.
The Government's philosophy of antipathy to licensing is well known beyond the private security inidustry. Their antipathy to regulation of the industry is clearly expressed in a recently published, but not widely distributed, report entitled "The private security inidustry: background paper." Paragraph 25 says:
Market forces … operate. Inevitably, users of the industry get what they pay for … The Government would not wish to intervene in a way which relieved users of security companies of their responsibilities for setting and monitoring effective contracts with these companies. It is ultimately for users to ensure that the company they choose is competent and reliable, and to include strict requirements for employee vetting, training, supervision and performance in their contracts.
It is wrong to argue that the people hiring the private security firm would be familiar with the organisations set up by the industry, that they would know the performance of the companies that were members of those associations, or that they wouild be familiar with the Manned Services Inspectorate. If they wished to purchase a security system —I am having one installed in four hours' time, which is not the reason for the debate but is an indication of its topicality for the George household—they would be unlikely to be familiar with the term NACOSS—the National Approval Council for Security Systems—which is the supervisory association for security systems.
To impose on potential hirers of security companies the obligations to be knowledgeable about the technical intricacies as well as performance and competence is asking a great deal. Taxi drivers have to prove competence and honesty; surely the same should apply to personnel who will guard property and lives. It is wrong to rely on market forces and knowledge of the free market.
The industry has grown in leaps and bounds. We can trace its private detective origins to the mid-19th century. Locksmiths go back many centuries before that. Guarding —which is what I am largely, although not exclusively, talking about tonight—goes back to the early 16th century when men were first paid by private individuals to guard private property. There was the Watch, which was made up of men working on a rota basis. Later, people who were part of the rota appointed substitutes to work on their behalf—generally speaking they were the unemployable. The author Henry Fielding said of the watches, which were disparagingly called "Charlies":
They are chosen out of those poor, decrepit people who are from their want of bodily strength rendered incapable of getting a living by work.
The bad odour that surrounds the private security industry is not a phenomenon of the late 20th century. The impetus for reform came from the City of London. I accuse the Government of turning back the clock on policing by almost a century and a half.
In the pre-policing era, if one wished for security and the protection of life and property, one had to rely on one's own endeavours. The municipality employed guards, but

they were generally pretty ineffective; banks hired their own guards for the transportation of money; people who lived in private homes or groups of homes hired private watchmen. All these measures were rendered superfluous and marginal by the establishment of the modern police force.
When society and the state assumed responsibility for policing, the private sector atrophied. Now, regrettably, the public cannot find the remotest guarantee of protection of life and property from the police force, because its numbers have not grown commensurate with the growth in crime. The inevitable consequence is the increased use of the private security industry, which now operates in areas that were hitherto the responsibility of the police.
Private individuals hire companies to install burglar alarms. Hospitals, and even schools, employ their own security guards. There is an enormous growth in security for the home, for factories and for shopping malls. Only last weekend I heard of a private security firm in Solihull called Rentacop. It patrols a private estate and proudly boasts that its security operation will relieve the police of the great responsibility of patrolling that housing estate.
The area from which my parents come in south Wales provides a further example of how the public are frightened, not by the perception of crime, but by the reality of crime. Residents in the district have set up more than a neighbourhood watch; there is a rota system in which two people patrol throughout the night, with a third person manning a telephone. There has been a levy on householders to raise money to buy a mobile telephone. That measure has had the support of the police.
In south Wales, there has also been a growth in aggressive vigilantism, which has led, in one case, to loss of life. We have seen the emergence of hell's angels and the terrifying evolution of self-help security in the era of do-it-yourself policing. I do not regard that as a model of security to which we should aspire. I would be terrified at the thought of the privatised security industry de facto, and eventually perhaps de jure, operating alongside the police—with the police responding to major crimes and the private security industry increasingly taking on tasks that were previously carried out by the police.
The Government have deliberately encouraged the growth of the private security industry. The Government have also encouraged the private sector to take on responsibility in prisons and for the guarding of immigrants. Before the Minister says it, I know that that policy started in, I think, 1978. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 contained further inanities such as the privatisation of prison escorts and court security. The private industry is lapping up those developments.
The private security industry has been enormously advantaged by the Government's inability to control crime —it is the principal beneficiary of that failure. I shall not dwell too long on criminal statistics, which are published annually, but the latest report for 1991 said that there had been an annual increase of 6 per cent. in the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police between 1981–91. For crimes of violence against the person, there was an annual increase of 7 per cent.; robbery, 8 per cent.; burglary, 5 per cent.; criminal damage, 8 per cent.; and other offences, 10 per cent.
We are all aware of the percentages of crimes that take place as opposed to those that are recorded. The latest


report "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1991" Command 2134 published by the Home Office shows that recorded burglaries rose by more than 20 per cent. It says:
Robberies rose at a faster rate than all other main offence groups in 1991 with a 25 per cent. increase.
The staggering increase in crime has led people who are unable to rely on the police, as they did in the past, to fall into the willing hands of the private security industry. The industry is adaptable. It sees a commercial imperative and seizes further opportunities. A further reason for growth in the private security industry is not simply the increase in the crimes but the new crimes that are coming into existence. That has led to the industry prospering.
I am not opposed to the private security industry. There are those who see me as an enemy of the industry. It is quite the reverse. I recall giving written evidence to the Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw, in 1979. In the foreword to my report, I said:
The industry is important and will develop further in the public interest as well as the interest of the companies, their employees and the consumers of security services only if the parameters of their activities are set by Government, minimum standards are laid down and entry is controlled. I pay tribute to those thousands of competent, trained, honest and dedicated people who man many security operations. They face a danger often more serious than that faced by the police. Armed criminals increasingly have, as their targets, armoured vehicles. Lives have been lost and individuals injured, even maimed, and all this for a miserable wage.
I deny that my solution is other than in the interests of the private security industry. If the industry is prepared to press for regulation, eventually the Home Office may relent.
We are talking about an enormous industry. It is much larger than the police. if one takes it in its broadest sense. It has a turnover of £2 billion per year—one report suggests six billion ecu. We are talking about manned security; security guards in armoured vehicles; retail security; designers, installers and maintainers of alarms, locks, safes and security equipment; security consultants; those engaged in security storage; access control; security printing; office security; private investigating; VIP protection and security in places of entertainment. This is an enormous industry and one which will prosper fully only when it is operating within parameters laid down by legislation.
What is wrong with the industry at present? The first problem, but not necessarily the principal problem, is the penetration of the industry by those with serious criminal records. The Home Office dismisses that as alarmism. I recall a programme called "Punters" on BBC radio after the last general election. I thought of writing in and asking, "Could you find out why the Home Office is so hostile to the concept of licensing?" However, I was beaten to it by a guy from the north-east who was angry at how easy it was for him to come out of gaol and find a job in the private security industry. He was advised by a cellmate to join a specific company. It is easy to get into the industry.
Paragraph 55 of the sixth report 1989–90 of the Select Committee on Defence, of which I am a member, says:
We cannot however overlook the weight of evidence presented to us on the private security industry, which demonstrates its inability to ensure that it does not employ proven criminals or those with criminal intentions.

The chief constable of North Wales, who was at that time chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers crime committee, briefed the Select Committee on Defence, and in its report the Committee said:
From this briefing and from information on particular cases which have been supplied to us, it is evident that there is a very serious problem with the calibre of people employed by private security firms, arising in part from the employment of guards with criminal records.
The Minister will be aware of the leaked report from the Association of Chief Police Officers in 1987. It identified from a limited survey 609 firms that had given the police cause for concern. Another report by the association in 1990, prepared at the request of the Home Office, found 168 instances of staff, owners, managers and directors of private security firms being arrested or charged with serious offences. I understand that the police are still looking for a former Securicor employee, Eddie Maher, who hopped it with £1 million. Securicor has put up a reward of £100,000.
Despite all that, the Government deny that there is a problem. I have bulging files on crimes committed by private security guards. Of course, they are in a minority, and it would be wrong for me to castigate a large number of honest people and taint them with criminal intentions. However, that minority is worrying, because it demonstrates that it is painfully easy to enter the private security industry. A recent report published in "Police Review" was prepared by a guy called Graham Birch, who went into the industry to seek to prove the point that he wished to make. He asked:
Flow easy is it to be employed as a security guard without any vetting, so gaining access to property to steal, or plant a bomb if so inclined? My research has shown that often it is frighteningly straightforward.
I shall deal for a few moments with the case study of the growth of crime and how it affects the private security industry. Shopping centres are guarded by private security companies, and that phenomenon illustrates the range of crime that such firms have to deal with. They include car park crime, risk of fire—accidental or arson—ram raiding, a crime that is euphemistically called shrinkage, bilking, credit card theft, armed robbery, racial harassment and attacks, terrorism, extortion and kidnapping.
Those crimes are examples of pressures on the private security industry, and I am afraid that in many cases and for a variety of reasons the industry does not measure up to the task. One of the reasons for that is the lack of any obligation on the industry to have a decent training regime. The bigger companies rarely invest more than three days in initial training on the job. How can one expect people to function as effective security officers after such a short period of training? The overwhelming majority of the personnel in the private security industry do not have three days—or even three hours—training.
A recent report shows that we have probably the lowest percentage of trained guards in the European Community. Training schemes in the contract cleaning industry arc infinitely better thought out and more comprehensive. The British Institute of Cleaning Science manual shows that the cleaning operator's proficiency certificate is infinitely preferable to anything in the private security industry for the training of personnel. If the security services involved in cleaning can embark on such a path, I only hope that the private security industry will do so.
There have been improvements in, for instance, the City and Guilds and the security industry training organisation.
Last year, I presented a national vocational certificate at Olympia; I believe that the British Standards Institution is doing a great deal of work, as are our universities and colleges. Progress has been made over the past decade, but only for companies that wish to subject themselves and their employees to a training regime.
How often do such schemes involve middle or top management? In a number of American states, unless the principals of a company can prove that they have qualifications in the private security industry, they are not allowed to function. If that happened in this country, most private security companies would be driven out of business.
Criminality and gross inefficiency are two of the problems involved. It is not surprising that inefficiency is rampant: pay is usually very bad. GMB/APEX is one of the unions that have made a great deal of progress. We are talking about good employers who pay a decent wage; but let us envisage a situation in which a good company—company A—puts in a bid for a contract. It pays a decent wage; the personnel are properly supervised; there are proper communications and proper holiday pay. The company takes out a good insurance policy, so that if one of its personnel sets fire to a factory, compensation will be possible. Company B is a cowboy outifit with low wages; the guys must work 70, 80 or 90 hours a week, and receive poor holiday pay, poor supervision, poor uniforms and no insurance.
In many cases, the hirer will opt for the cheapest bid. Almost inevitably, price competition means that quality will suffer: in most cases, good companies cannot compete with the rubbish, and are compelled to lower their standards to stay in business.
Turnover can be 100 per cent. in many companies; hours can be long, because the wages are so abysmal. Performance is often rubbish. The Defence Select Committee inquired into a company which will remain nameless: it was referred to simply as "serial 46". Our report concluded that that company represented one of the most appalling stories that we had heard in the last 10 years. The Committee has mounted four or five inquiries into the private security industry, as it pertains to the Ministry of Defence.
The company had a contract with the MoD's procurement executive in north London. According to the report,
For a period of over a year, from early 1989, the company received a series of formal warnings, following complaints of 'too high a turnover of staff, not enough staff always provided, staff not always wearing uniform and staff coming on duty without having been through the due processes'.
To cap this litany, there were on more than one occasion cases of vandalism committed by the guards, including the smashing of windows. The Director of MoD Security unfolded a horrifying tale of inefficiency, idleness and absenteeism. The company was given, in effect three months' notice in November 1989, and this contract was prematurely terminated on 20 February 1990. The firm was not replaced immediately, as there were no available alternatives.
We concluded that the fact that the company's
security guards should be unable to prevent occasional criminal damage on dispersed civilian sites was understandable, if regrettable. But that they should themselves indulge in an apparent spree of vandalism on a Ministry of Defence site; that it should not even be an isolated occurrence, but one matched by employees of other companies at other MoD sites: and that the MoD should not be able instantly to remove the security guards for lack of a viable alternative beggars belief.

The performance of the industry is often grossly sub-standard. The Government cannot wash their hands of performance and say that it is purely a matter for the market to determine.
I have talked about criminality, poor performance, absence of accountability, low public esteem, which stretches from indifference to amusement, and poor relations with the police. I have not given the argument of private armies because I feel that it is invalid. I do not see Group 4, Securicor or Security Express marching down Whitehall to remove a Government, however attractive that might appear at present. There is not the will and there is not remotely the competence. Besides, a large percentage of such firms are unionised, which would probably have an effect the opposite of that which I have said.
The Government's approach to all the problems has been minimalist. They have been hostile to statutory control, favouring self-regulation, which is so discredited in other sectors of industry and commerce. Self-regulation is an oxymoron. It is merely self-defensive companies banding together to do the least possible to stave off external criticism and Government action.
Up to 1980, the Home Office was indifferent to the private security industry. I managed to squeeze out of the then Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees, a Green Paper on security that turned out to be a hatchet job on my concept of regulation. Since then, there has been collusion between the Home Office and the private sector, particularly the British Security Industry Association Ltd., which has encouraged a seemingly endless system of acronyms. Private security rivals only the Ministry of Defence in the production of acronyms. BSIA established MSI in 1982, then the Inspectorate of the Security Industry a few years later. We had SSI, the Security Systems Inspectorate, in 1987 and NSCIA, the National Supervisory Council for Intruder Alarms, became NACOSS, the National Approval Council for Security Systems. We also saw IPSA establishing the BRSB and the establishment of SITO. To my mind, that amounts to another acronym—SFA.
The Government established a working group to consider ways of improving self-regulation. The committee that they established came up with the predictable and intended result, namely, ways of improving self-regulation. From whatever angle we look at self-regulation, it has been unsuccessful. It is fundamentally flawed. It is an improvement on what happened before, but it is grossly inadequate. The present system excludes many companies and tens of thousands of employees who are not part of any system of self-regulation. The motive force is the interest of the bigger companies and their professional leadership. The Government have admitted that inevitably users of the industry get what they pay for. The Government consider that issues such as training and wages are fundamentally matters for the industry and its customers. That is a fundamentally flawed argument.
The Government's route is not the way forward. It is for the Government to accept their responsibility for establishing the parameters within which the industry operates. I have tried on several occasions to introduce a Private Security (Registration) Bill. I had all-party support. The Bill would establish a regulatory authority and a registration council. The Bill provides for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that in an Adjournment debate, the subject to be discussed must not involve legislation except incidentally.

Mr. George: Incidentally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that the Government will read my Bill and even act upon it.
Sooner rather than later, a concept of statutory regulation and licensing will be accepted. It will come about because more and more companies in the industry will see licensing and statutory control as the way forward to establish their legitimacy and wipe out unfair competition.
Jim Harrower, chairman of Group 4 Securitas, said recently that his company has been arguing for statutory control for 20 years. IPSA, the International Professional Security Association, which is closely linked with the BSIA —the British Security Industry Association Ltd.—in a new regulatory authority, is basically in favour of statutory control. Perhaps the House will take more interest in the private security industry than in the past. Eventually, public opinion will require the industry to be regulated. The creation of the internal market will provide a logic and impetus that will persuade even this Government to accept that they have taken the wrong route. If this Government do not pay heed to the warnings, I hope that the next one will.

5 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on securing this debate. The future of the private security industry is of interest to us all, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. The House will be aware of his long-standing interest in statutory regulation. He is definitely not a flash in the pan, as someone apparently described him.
I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view of self-regulation, nor his analysis of recent developments. Crime has been increasing throughout the western world over the past 40 years. Since 1979, the Government have increased spending on the police by more than 80 per cent. to a figure approaching £6,000 million. There are 16,700 more uniformed police officers, and more uniformed officers being released by the process of civilianisation.
Police priorities remain to protect the public, prevent crime and tackle crime when it occurs. It has never been suggested that the police can handle crime prevention alone. As the hon. Member for Walsall, South knows, the Home Office has a wide range of initiatives. They include crime prevention units, the safer cities programme, 115,000 neighbourhood watch schemes, car crime prevention year, and so on. They all involve co-operative effort between the police, local community groups of all sorts, local authorities and business interests. Crime prevention cannot, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, be left purely to the police—and that has never been the case.
I define a private security company as one that employs staff to protect property or individuals, or that installs systems that do so. The superficial differences between the private security industry and what one might call the public security industry—such as the police and prison service—lie in the method of funding, accountability, the authority given to individuals, and the uniform.
The private sector receives its funds direct from those who want to pay for specific services. The hon. Gentleman would no doubt agree that it is accountable only to those who have paid directly for its services. Its employees do not have powers of arrest and detention such as those held by a police constable. It is an offence to impersonate a police officer. The private security guard, therefore, must wear a uniform that could not be confused with that of a police officer. That important distinction should be made in our deliberations.
I call those differences superficial because they are the surface indication of the substantial differences between the private and public security functions. The police are paid from public funds because they are expected to provide a service to everyone who needs to be protected from crime or public disorder. Police constables are accountable to the law, not to any individual who happens to pay them. Because of that wider accountability, they can be given the authority to interfere with the liberty of other members of the public—and because their uniform is a symbol of that authority, no one else can wear it. The private security industry, therefore, can be clearly distinguished from a public service, and it is divided into two main sectors.
First, and most visible, is the manned guarding sector, about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. It consists of security officers who are responsible for guarding individuals, private property and cash in transit. Also included here are the door supervisors employed by night clubs to control admission and maintain order. I shall say more about them later. Then there are the security systems specialists. They install and maintain intruder alarms, security locks and safes and, to a lesser extent, access control and closed circuit television systems. There is a clear need for all these services, and the future of the private security industry is to continue to provide them.
That, of course, is a broad generalisation. It is in the nature of commercial firms to expand and find new markets. The question at issue in considering the future of the private security industry and regulation is how far such an expansion should be allowed to go. Privately guarded vehicles use public streets. Individuals living on public estates may decide that they want protection greater than that which can be provided by the police. Police capacity is stretched and could perhaps be augmented by privately hired security guards. Security systems installed by private firms could be monitored by these firms instead of by the police.
This blurring of boundaries is made even greater by the very welcome emphasis in recent years on the need for closer co-operation between the police and the public in crime prevention, to which I alluded at the beginning of my speech. There has been a tremendous growth in crime prevention activity, through the schemes to which I referred, up and down the country, involving active, public-spirited citizens. The public is becoming increasingly aware that the police cannot fight crime alone, or keep order without substantial co-operation from the general public. That must inevitably raise the question, which the hon. Gentleman touched on several times, whether there is room for any other commercial way of providing still more support for both the police and the public in their efforts to create the kind of society in which we all want to live.
The scope for this kind of expansion has already been recognised in the employment of private security firms under contract to the public sector. Where the full range of


police, or prison, powers and skills is not needed, it is difficult to argue that the private sector should not be involved. That has been recognised in the employment of Group 4 to replace police and prison officers who previously had been used to escort prisoners. It is, however, at an early stage of development. The Government wish to make a full evaluation of its effectiveness and its implications before deciding on other areas in which private sector security may provide a welcome relief to the heavily pressed public sector.
If I may be allowed to dwell for a second on Group 4, about which the hon. Gentleman made some helpful remarks, despite the well-publicised problems—not publicised by the hon. Gentleman—during the early days of the contract, the court escort contract operated by Group 4 in Humberside and the east midlands is providing significant benefits to the criminal justice system in the area. Much has been made of the escapes from custody in the first days of the contract but, given the scale of the task that Group 4 took on, it would have been surprising if there had not been some teething difficulties. They should not be allowed to overshadow the fact that about 2,000 moves of prisoners are carried out successfully each week. Group 4 has been operating for 17 weeks, so we are talking about 34,000 prisoner moves, during which time there were 12 escapes.
The Government were able to offer a contract to Group 4 because it and other firms that tendered for the work were able to show that they maintained adequate standards, both in the employment of their staff and in defining the limits of their activities. That is not true of all security firms, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. This lack of recognised or common standards is one reason why it may be premature to generalise about the future of the private security industry. This overall description covers organisations as well known and respected as Group 4 and Securicor; smaller, less well-known but equally reliable specialist firms; and individuals who have great personal integrity and years of experience. However, it also takes in groups of people who rather more closely resemble the criminals they purport to oppose and some who are out to make quick money rather than to offer a worthwhile service, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged.
The wide diversity of the industry is one of the factors that make it difficult to generalise at present about the future role of the industry. Another factor is the extent to which the police service, to which it is most closely compared, is itself in a process of great change. The proposals in the White Paper on police reform are intended to encourage a much closer relationship between what local people want from their police and what they receive.
The White Paper gives chief constables much greater freedom to choose how best to meet the policing needs of the communities that they serve. It envisages stronger police authorities which may themselves have a view of the role of the private sector in their police areas. It would be premature to leap to conclusions now on the future role of the security industry before those critical changes come into effect.
Similarly, the White Paper suggests that both national and local objectives should be set for the police. Those objectives should help the police to prioritise and may encourage them, probably with some reluctance, to drop

some tasks that have previously been seen as theirs alone. There may be other opportunities for the private security industry in that regard.
I hope that what I have said so far shows that the Government are not blind to the opportunities for expansion of the private security industry or indifferent to the way in which boundaries between its functions and those of the police and prison service may change in response to changing circumstances. We recognise that the private security industry has a valuable part to play in the overall approach to public safety, but we think that it needs to demonstrate its own strengths and establish its own standards before it can become a strong contender for growth. We are anxious to see it become a more coherent industry of its own volition before we begin to consider seriously the diversion of large sums of public money to procure its services.
That is why we have encouraged and supported the industry's efforts to regulate itself instead of conceding to requests from the hon. Gentleman and others for Government regulation. If all that was in question was the checking of criminal records, that could be achieved, if not immediately at least when the new computerised criminal record system becomes operable next year, but the lack of a criminal record system in itself tells nothing of the industry's own maturity and ability to set standards and to see that they are maintained. We believe that the consistent refusal to accept this as a Government responsibility has been a significant factor in the progress that the industry is now making.
In 1990 the National Approval Council for Security Systems—NACOSS—to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was created. It has since been accredited by the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies—the NACCB—as a fit and proper body to certificate firms complying with relevant British standards in the field of intruder alarm installation. In the same year, the Security Industry Training Organisation, SITO, was formed. SITO has since been recognised by the Department of Employment as the central point of reference for training needs throughout the security industry.
In 1992, the Inspectorate of the Security Industry—ISI—was launched. That body was set up jointly by the main trade associations in the security industry. It provides an inspection service for firms in the manned guarding sector and is currently awaiting the outcome of its application for accreditation.
Companies within the industry may therefore apply to these bodies for certification to British standards, and customers should look for companies that comply with recognised standards. National vocational qualifications have been developed by the industry, and their increasing importance to companies as a means of assessing the quality of staff or applicants will also help to raise standards.
I said that I would come back to the subject of door supervisors who are sometimes known euphemistically by other terms. This is an area in which individuals could all too easily abuse the aura of authority which being part of the private security industry can give.
The Government have received representations from 1989 onwards about problems of intimidation and violence caused by door supervisors in certain areas. The suggestion was that these would be mitigated by the introduction of a statutory licensing system involving


criminal records checks on those employed as door supervisors. Police reports revealed that some 60 per cent. of force areas had such problems and had set up, or intended to set up, local regulatory schemes in conjunction with local authorities to deal with them.
The police were invited to monitor a representative sample of the local schemes over a year. The schemes mainly operated through conditions attached to the licensing legislation requiring door supervisors to be registered. The registration procedure involved local checking of criminal records. The schemes generally worked well, and I shall discuss them further with representatives of the entertainment industry and the hon. Memberss whom I have arranged to meet later this year, including the hon. Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). That local process matches much more closely than a national one the vision in the White Paper on police reform of local policing being matched to local needs.
In taking the actions that I have outlined, the Government believe that the private security industry has shown itself to be flexible enough to provide answers to demands for improved regulation within a fairly short time scale, and to offer an increasing range of services in both the private and public domains. It is our view that it will increasingly compete for contracts in all aspects of protection of private property and of individuals. Those letting contracts, whether they are chief constables, chief executives or anyone else, will ensure that the companies and their work forces are able to demonstrate the right qualifications, and will set proper standards for job performance. Those who fail to offer quality assurance, or fail to meet the standards in operation, will not be able to compete; hence the advantages of self-regulation.
In that way, we believe that those who are accountable to the public for public safety will increasingly have confidence in the services offered by the private sector. They will be able to make pragmatic decisions about the most effective way of ensuring public safety in situations in which the division between public and private property and interest becomes blurred. They will ensure that the public and the private sector work together at local level to meet local needs to local standards. It is only then that we shall be able to make a true judgment of whether further regulation is really needed.

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry (Water Supply)

Mr. Bill Etherington: When the list of subjects for the debate was published, I thought that I would do what I usually do, and that is begin to make my speech at 8 am, just as the debate is due to end. However, I have been very fortunate, and I am pleased to be able to continue the Adjournment debate that you chaired a week ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, when my hon. Friend and much-cherished neighbour the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) first referred to the possible effect on water supplies in the north-east should the coal mining industry in that area die.
One reason I chose this subject is that, last week, many questions remained unanswered. Although this is a difficult subject for most lay people to get a grip on, Members of Parliament do not have to be experts to have an opinion on most subjects. Our constituents expect us to take notice of expert opinion and try to reach a conclusion on the issue.
Until the late 1950s or early 1960s, my constituency and, indeed, what was the town of Sunderland before it became a city relied for its drinking water almost entirely on bore holes. That was an expensive way of providing water, because it required complex pumping arrangements.
Most hon. Members are aware that, when the Kielder reservoir was mooted in the 1950s, it was to cope with what was expected to be burgeoning demand from the expanding Teeside industrial sector—an expansion which, sadly, never came about. The Kielder was far too large for the needs of the area. When the Kielder reservoir was built, the system supplying the north-east was by means of a pipeline to the River Tyne, the River Wear and the River Tees. The pipeline intersected the three rivers between 25 and 30 miles from the coast. From that time on, bore holes in and around Sunderland were gradually closed, and more and more water was taken by abstraction from the River Wear. My constituency now relies almost entirely on the abstraction of water from that river.
The nearest plant at Chester-le-Street, which takes water out for the purposes of purification and transfer into the water supply system for Wearside, is 20 miles downstream from where that water enters the River Wear from the Kielder reservoir pipeline. This information may be mundane and boring but it explains the fears of my constituents should mining cease in the north-east.
The way in which the matter has been handled by British Coal and the Government reminds me of that great Prime Minister, H. H. Asquith, Earl of Asquith and Oxford, as he became, who was immortalised—perhaps not for the best of reasons—for the phrase, "Wait and see." No politician or anyone who has any sense should use that phrase to answer a question. Such a reply could be a millstone around their necks for the rest of their lives. Yet that is precisely what representatives of British Coal say in response to the fears vented by local authorities and people in the north-east.
Mining in the north-east began in the western extremes of the coalfield, which were quite shallow. Mining gradually worked its way east, to a great depth. It so happens that the one remaining colliery in County


Durham, Wearmouth in my constituency, is the deepest shaft mine in the north-east. It is at the bottom of the basin that consists of the coal measures.
In the past 100 years, as the western parts of the coalfield have been worked out, water has migrated from the cavities created by the roadways and the collapsed coal faces. For many years, British Coal operated a series of pumping stations, spread out inland, to prevent those vast quantities of water from reaching the coastal pits. Until relatively recently, there were eight coastal collieries, which were served by a fan of inland pumping stations. Gradually, those pits have been closed.
When the Minister replied to last week's Adjournment debate, he said that, in the 40 years since nationalisation, 107 collieries have closed. He claimed that that had not affected the water table or drinking water supplies. That reply misses the point, because, although the pits have been closed, the pumping has, until now, gone on unabated and kept the water table artificially low. It has remained at that level for the past 40 years.
I do not want to be alarmist, because many people spoil a good argument by exaggerating the possible effects of certain action. Nevertheless, British Coal has expressed one opinion about the water pumping which has been contradicted by the reservations expressed by environmentalists and the National Rivers Authority. They are not prepared to accept the opinion of British Coal.
The argument is about how long it will be before the subterranean water returns to its original level in the water table and about its quality when it finds its way into the River Wear. The old mine workings have created an entirely different underground environment from that which existed when the ground was solid. The coal measures contain permeable and impermeable beds through which water runs and forms Artesian wells at the bottom of the deepest measures.
In the past, various water companies bought water from the then National Coal Board. They did, however, on occasions, stop buying it, because it was considered unsuitable for processing into drinking-quality water.
I, like many others, have met British Coal spokesmen about this issue. The vagueness of their replies leaves one more worried than before the questions were asked. For one thing, no one can give an exact estimate of when the water will start issuing from the mineshaft, nor can anyone say what its chemical properties will be.
Still, the coal board contends that there is nothing to worry about. It may have nothing to worry about, because by the time the problem arises, British Coal may no longer exist, but eventually someone will have to pick up the tab. Already my constituents and the rest of the people supplied with their water by the Northumberland water authority are having to pay higher bills because of the construction of the massive Kielder reservoir. It is a pity that it cannot be put to better use, and the water sent to the midlands and southern England where it is badly needed —but that is a problem for another day.
Within the past week all Members of Parliament have received a letter from the Director General of Water Services in which he explains that the country is having great difficulty complying with EC water quality regulations. He goes as far as to suggest that some of the criteria should be made less stringent, so that we can comply with them more easily. At least we are being honest with the EC about our water quality; several other countries are not bothering to be. I understand, too, that

the regulations are shortly to be tightened up further, which will only make matters worse. Anyway, the regulator estimates that compliance with the current regulations will cost the average householder another £100 a year.
Our worry is not that we will suddenly lose our water supply in the north-east; we are worried about the costs if British Coal, as seems likely, is proved wrong. I seem to remember the coal board being wrong about a lot of things in the past. On its analysis we should still have 80 collieries operating. We were told that there was a golden future for them in the late 1990s, but we now have fewer than 20 pits.
British Coal may say that it knows all there is to know about pumping water and about geology. It does not know, however, about the chemical properties of the water that it produces, about the water's effect on supplies, and about the ability of the regional water companies to deal with the problem.
I would feel more confident that the problem will be adequately dealt with if the water companies had not been privatised. The consumers are now having to pay for most of the investment, and for the vastly enhanced salaries of the people who took over the industry and got themselves a nice cushy number. These private bodies seem more concerned with selling off land and running hotels than with water.
If problems arise, Northumbrian Water is likely to turn to the Government for a subsidy to help overcome this foreseeable problem. As British Coal has one opinion and the environmental experts have another, I hope that the Minister will announce that the Department of the Environment will set up a commission comprising a geologist, a hydrologist and other experts to give us an independent report. I have heard no statement from the Northumbrian water authority, so I do not know its position, but the National Rivers Authority, with which the basic responsibility lies, is far from happy with what is being said by British Coal.
In last week's debate, we went through many of the arguments, and I have tried not to repeat them tonight, but there is one thing that everyone should know, even if they know nothing about the supply of water. Everyone should know that, if one creates a void, something fills it. There are hundreds of square miles of voids at various levels throughout the whole of county Durham and most of Northumberland.
I do not think that the problem will have a great effect on the River Tees because it is on the edge of the coalfield but, as the water table rises and water percolates into streams and eventually into the River Wear, there will be insurmountable problems in the 20-mile stretch from where the Kielder water pipeline meets the River Wear and the furthest pumping station downstream at Chester-le-Street. It is important that the debate continues until someone provides some answers.
It is no good one authority saying that it is worried while another says that it does not need to be. That is far from satisfactory. Any Government who were rightly concerned about the issue would be starting to make inquiries in their own right.

Mr. Robin Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), on the dawn of the last day on which the


House will sit before the summer recess, on giving the House an opportunity to return to a matter that has concerned it throughout the parliamentary year.
My hon. Friend drew attention to one of the effects of the decline of the coal industry which may have been insufficiently noted in our debates. While some of us have dealt with the economic and social impact of closure on local communities, my hon. Friend rightly and properly drew attention to the incalculable impact on the environment and, specifically, on the water supply.
I hesitate to follow my hon. Friend in talking about the water supply of his area or the impact of the closure of the pits on that supply, because he has shown such great knowledge. Having visited some pits, however, I was extremely impressed by the complexity of the charts and maps of the underground workings. I visited Markham, which has now closed. A chart of the underground workings covers an entire wall of the manager's office, going back 120 years. Each successive decade is represented in a different colour, one on top of the other. It is an extraordinarily graphic representation. Indeed, it entered my mind that the Tate gallery might pay enough for the objet d'art to keep the pit in operation for another six months.
When one examines such a chart, what comes across is the fact that no one knows what the final impact of ceasing to pump in such areas may be on the water supply and water flow. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the wide-ranging, and to a large extent unknown, consequences which may have a permanent impact on the environment, just as the closure of the pit will have an immediate impact on the area's economy and employment prospects.
The debate takes place in the wake of the publication of British Coal's annual report, which highlighted the cost to British Coal of ceasing work at some pits. It was clear from the bottom line losses in the report that, in the past year, it has proved much more expensive for British Coal to try to close mines than to keep them in production. My hon. Friend highlighted one of the additional costs of the closure of pits, which could well flow to the Government. It is a cost that has not hitherto been reflected in considering whether it would be profitable or costly to close the pits.
My hon. Friend had the good sense to make the terms of the debate wide, and he has thereby attracted to the Dispatch Box two spokespersons on the energy rather than the environmental side. I congratualte him on that, because it gives us the opportunity to explore some of the questions on which we have attempted to press the Government in previous debates.
May I therefore invite the Minister to update us on the answers to some of our questions? I say "update", but to be honest that is rather charitable, because, when we last debated the matter three weeks ago, we received no answers to our questions. May I tempt the Minister by saying that I understand why the Secretary of State, addressing a crowded House in prime time and in a fevered atmosphere, may overlook the need to answer questions posed by the Opposition, but we are speaking frankly, openly, in sober terms and in a modestly attended Chamber. If the Minister needs further temptation, may I

point out that Hansard will not be printed until the House has risen and that he can therefore risk being more frank with us?
The Minister will be aware that it is now almost four months since the Government published their White Paper on the coal review. He will be aware that the central solution that they adopted was a subsidy on coal from the 12 allegedly reprieved pits. None of those 12 pits has yet seen extra contracts signed for its coal between British Coal and the generators; nor is there an immediate prospect of a contract being signed.
I want to press the Minister on some of the background against which the negotiations took place and to put to him three points on which I should be grateful for his guidance and which would help British Coal and the 10 remaining reprieved pits in seeking extra contracts. I am aware that this is a late hour, and I notice that the Minister is not supported by his entire private office. He may wish to write to me rather than reply to my points today, but it would make a refreshing contrast from our previous debates and it would send me off to the summer recess in a sweeter mood if I could have an answer to the questions that I am now going to put.
The first question is, what is now happening between the Government and the generators about stock drawdown? The most immediate reason why the two generators do not wish to place extra contracts for coal is that they have 35 million tonnes of it on their doorstep. They have taken the view that it is cheaper for them to burn the coal that they have already paid for than to place contracts, however competitively priced, for more coal. My judgment is that that may be in the short-term interests of the generators but it is not in their long-term interest, and it most certainly is not in the long-term interest of energy supply in Britain. The short-term effect of not purchasing that extra coal could be permanent closure of the extra pits that are looking for those contracts.
The White Paper promised action and committed the Government to entering into a dialogue with generators about the rate at which they draw down stock. If I recall correctly, during the debate the Minister for Energy said that talks were now proceeding. It is not immediately obvious from the impact on the rate at which generators are drawing down or attempting to draw down stock that those talks are having a significant effect.
May I therefore press the Minister to tell the House whether talks have taken place with the generators? What is the Government's objective in those talks, and to what extent do they hope, within the immediate future, to secure an agreement that might then concentrate the minds of generators on buying extra coal from British Coal?
My second point arose in previous debates. If the Minister can conclude this matter the debate will have had the happy effect of drawing together some of the unanswered threads of previous debates. When we debated the White Paper, the President of the Board of Trade was pressed from his own Back Benches about the interconnector with France. He was specifically pressed by the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) about the requirement that we were making of the French to obtain common carriage through the French grid to Spain, Italy, Switzerland and other countries that might wish to purchase our electricity.
We recognise that it is difficult to get the French to purchase our electricity. They do not need it, and even if they did they probably would not buy it. However, they


have no right, under European legislation, to deny us common carriage across their grid to neighbouring countries that need our electricity and might be tempted to purchase it, and in doing so facilitate the export of coal in the form of electricity.
I and many of my hon. Friends find it incomprehensible that we continue to import such large volumes of electricity from France, meeting base load need in the south of England, when France will not even accept the common carriage of our electricity to third countries for sale—for no other reason than that such common carriage would provide them with competition on the sale of French electricity to those countries. It cannot be right that there is a Community obligation on us to import French electricity when there is not a parallel Community obligation on the French to provide that service of common carriage.
In reply to the hon. Member for Romford, the President of the Board of Trade said that he was aware of the issue. He gave the impression—after all, a tense vote was approaching—that action was being taken on that front. I very much hope so. I press the Minister to share with us details of what negotiations are now proceeding with the French, and what progress there may be on obtaining common carriage across the French system. If we could secure that, there is every possibility that Britain could significantly enhance its coal burn for electricity that it could provide to countries where it would be extremely competitively priced.
My third question to the Minister on which I would be grateful for his guidance either this morning or in the next few days by letter is: what has happened to the nuclear review? The White Paper said that it would be brought forward from 1994 to this year. The nuclear review has a close and immediate impact on the subject that we are debating this morning.
The White Paper followed the report of the Select Committee, which clearly spelled out the extent to which the nuclear levy is more than sufficient to meet the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations, and the excess is providing a subsidy to the operating costs of Nuclear Electric, which confers on it a substantial competitive advantage against coal, and results in the rather odd economic outcome that, although electricity from nuclear power is more expensive than electricity from coal-fired power stations, it is cheaper for the electricity companies to buy it.
I may have missed something in the past few days, but I have not seen any announcement about the nuclear review—I confess that I have been unable to reach any of my research staff in the past hour as I have been thinking about the debate—but I am aware that there was an expectation that it would be announced before the House rose. Could the Minister guide us on when we can expect that the nuclear review will be announced and what its remit will be? In particular, could he remove the anxiety among those who want to see a broad-balanced strategy towards energy policy and those who are particularly concerned about the place within that of the coal industry?
Could the Minister also remove the anxiety that the nuclear review, when it comes around, will be narrowly focused on how the Government will manage to achieve their ideological objective of privatising the nuclear industry? Will he assure us that, as well as looking at that question, which I am sure that the Government will look at, the nuclear review will also look at the issues of the

economic evidence of the nuclear industry and the extent to which the nuclear levy may provide it with a competitive edge against the coal industry which works against the interests of the most efficient use of fuel mix in British power stations?
There is one specific issue on which it would be helpful if the Minister could remove anxiety and concern from the minds of those in the House before we rise for the summer recess—or, in our case, before we adjourn for breakfast. Twelve pits were "reprieved" in the White Paper. The closure of two of those 12 pits has already been announced. That leaves 10 pits for which, as yet, no extra contracts have been signed. Without extra contracts, the future of those 10 pits remains deeply insecure, and the stability of their reprieve is under a major question mark.
Does the Minister have any information to suggest that any of those 10 pits will close during the recess? The future of those pits is an issue to which the House will have to return. I press the hon. Gentleman for an assurance that that issue will not arise while the House is not sitting. I would not wish a circumstance to arise in which hon. Members' summer holidays were interrupted by the need to recall the House to discuss further pit closures.
It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could give an assurance that, if it turns out that our fears are well founded and that the future of some of those pits is in doubt, that issue will not arise while the House is not sitting, and that the House will have the opportunity to return before there are any further additions to the long list of pit closures that has studded this parliamentary year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on securing this slot in the Consolidated Fund debate. I, like him, was under the impression that we might not reach this subject—but fortune has possibly shone on him. I shall deal with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in a moment; first, I want to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North.
A number of the hon. Gentleman's points are really matters for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I cannot add too much to what he said during an Adjournment debate on 20 July, in which the hon. Gentleman participated. My hon. Friend said —I endorse his remarks—
The consequences of mine closures are complex. It is clearly an offence for mine owners, such as British Coal, to cause pollution of water courses, regardless of whether a mine is active or abandoned. I do not think that there is any dispute about that, and there need be no argument about it. Responsibility for avoiding pollution rests with the discharger. Discharges from active mines are covered by the system of discharge consents that are operated by the NRA.
We are aware of the issues that have been raised about the legal provisions causing discharges from mine workings. The question was referred to in last year's report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on freshwater quality, which recommended"—[Official Report, 20 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 332.]
My hon. Friend then outlined what was particularly recommended.
There is no doubt that these matters are being continuously considered. The hon. Gentleman said that he


wanted to ensure that the debate would continue, and he has shown us tonight that it will continue and will be watched carefully. That is only right.
The hon. Gentleman made a rather strange comment, which I felt was both inaccurate and out of place. He said that the trouble with privatisation was that the consumer has to pay for investment. That has always been the case. Both before and after privatisation, whether as a taxpayer or directly, the consumer has always had to pay for investment. It is wrong to think that, before the water authorities were privatised, people did not have to pay for investment. Since privatisation, the water companies have made substantial investment, which will lead to improved quality in our drinking water. I should have thought that that would be welcomed by everybody.
The hon. Member for Livingston referred to the recent debate in which my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy made it clear that the conclusions of the White Paper were reached only after listening to a wide range of opinions, not only from Her Majesty's Opposition, but from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. We listened to what people said to us and took into account all the evidence that we received. We considered the independent reports which were commissioned and, in particular, we listened to the Select Committee's recommendations.
Many different opinions were expressed, even among the experts, but the main common theme from many people was that there was the prospect of an increased market if coal could be made available at world-related prices. The estimates of the size of the market varied. The Select Committee suggested in its report that the overall market might be as large as 313 million tonnes over the next five years. Our consultants suggested figures—based on high and low scenarios—of between approximately 200 million and 260 million tonnes. Figures from others were different again, as we made clear in the White Paper. We responded to those views. We accepted the main recommendation of the Select Committee and offered a subsidy to help coal obtain the extra market.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made it clear when the House voted in favour of the White Paper's conclusions that we could give no gurantees, and that remains the case. There can be no guarantees of the precise market for coal—that is not within our control or the control of private coal producers or British Coal. We have given the coal industry a fresh opportunity to compete, backed by public subsidy, for the extra market that so many commentators believed existed. British Coal is continuing to pursue that market vigorously.
I also remind the House of the second message that came through during the coal review: that British Coal would be better placed for a long-term, viable future if it could be given time to build on improvements in efficiency and cost reductions already achieved. The hon. Member for Livingston referred to his visit to Markham Main colliery, where he saw the coal workings. I accept that the hon. Members for Sunderland, North and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) will have seen many such maps—as I have. Therefore, the detailed workings that have taken place underground do not come as a surprise to us.
Reference was made to the maps going back more than 100 years. We are dealing with an extraction industry

which has seen many changes. One of my memories stems from the early 1960s, when I walked over a large area of disused coal mines where the West Cannock site used to be. Over a number of years, coal mining districts have experienced radical changes in their make-up and in the availability of work in the coal industry. That is not new to the industry or coal mining communities.
British Coal is continuing its efforts to improve productivity and efficiency and cut down costs. We are giving the industry the prospect of an increased market for coal by providing a subsidy. British Coal is also committed to making available to the private sector pits which it no longer wishes to operate. The recent letter from the chairman of British Coal to Members of Parliament shows that the corporation has been honouring its commitment.
British Coal has now advertised 19 pits for sale. Whether or not those pits ultimately find a successful home in the private sector will depend on the market, which it is not for the Government to determine. However, I understand that British Coal has received numerous expressions of interest in the pits advertised. That suggests that there are private companies which believe that there is a market for the coal which they could produce from the pits. Indeed, many of them, as well as independent analysts, said as much to us in their evidence to the coal review. They argued that private sector companies could substantially increase efficiency and reduce costs and therefore find additional markets.
The hon. Member for Livingston asked a number of questions. First, he asked about the French interconnector. I will give him the latest position. If I miss out any points, I will write to him, because I am keen for him to have a good recess, which he asked for.
On electricity trade with France, the Government have published a summary of their legal advice which is clear. Action to cut off imports through an interconnector would be a breach of Community law. The non-levy status of Electricité de France could not be removed without giving it the benefit of levy payments. That would mean that British consumers would end up paying more for their electricity.
There are a number of positive developments. Following earlier discussions with the then French Government, EDF recently reviewed and changed its bid price to supply into the pool for England and Wales to bring them more closely into line with its short-term marginal supply costs.
Last month, my hon. Friend had useful discussions with Mr. Longuet, the new French industry Minister. In the light of that meeting, officials are pursuing the issue of trade across the interconnector and EDF's non-leviable status. The future pattern of trade across the interconnector will depend on the operation of commercial contracts. The White Paper noted the evidence to the Committee that net exports from France to the United Kingdom could progressively but significantly reduce after 1995.
A United Kingdom generator has signed a contract for £100 million to export electricity to France over the next eight years at periods of peak demand in France during the winter. That shows in the clearest and most practical way that there are opportunities for United Kingdom generators.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the review of the nuclear industry. I am afraid that what I say to him today will not take us much further forward from the questions that he has asked in the past. The Government will bring


forward the review to later this year. Draft proposals for the scope, timing and format of the review have yet to be made. The Government will make further announcements in due course. I know that that will not bring much favour to the hon. Gentleman but I will draw his questions to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy.

Mr. Cook: I raised another matter which the Minister may wish to pursue in writing, if not in this debate. I hope that he does not lose sight of it either way. The rate at which the generators draw down coal stocks on site is critical to the immediate prospects for any extra contracts for British Coal. Unless the generators can be persuaded the Government have the power to do this—to moderate the rapid rate at which they propose to run clown the stocks, there is little prospect of extra contracts, which would provide a permanent and secure future for the 10 pits to which the Government claim to have given a reprieve.

Mr. McLoughlin: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Since the publication of the White Paper, action has been taken to review the level of the stocks necessary for security purposes. Discussions with the generators are continuing. Coal stocks will continue to be the mainstay of security for the electricity system. We will not allow them to fall below a level that would put supplies of electricity in jeopardy.
My hon. Friend must use his powers under the Electricity Act in a rational and defensible manner for their intended purpose. We cannot use them as a means merely of covertly subsidising British Coal. The Committee recommended that stocks should be kept at 20 million tonnes of coal, although it did not explain the rationale behind that figure. The figure is irrelevant to the debate, because stocks held at power stations at that time were more than 30 million tonnes. At present, stocks at the pithead are more than 13 million tonnes.
The whole question of stocks is rightly being addressed. It is obvious from the figures I referred to that substantial stocks already exist. I therefore do not see our stocks falling to a basically unacceptable level. Obviously, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
As I said, in this parliamentary year—the end of which we are approaching—coal has featured strongly in the political arena. I hope that what I have said in the debate and on other occasions shows that we are concerned about the future of the coal industry and that we rigorously question the way in which we can best ensure its future and a market for coal. Those have been our guiding principles in taking forward the discussions that we have had in the past year, and they will also guide us in the future.

Orders of the Day — Limited List Prescribing

Mr. James Couchman: I declare an interest in the pharmaceutical industry, and it is contained in the Register of Members' Interests. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, would remind me if I did not make such a declaration. I am an adviser to the Kent company and major pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer Ltd., and I have been a friend of the industry since coming to the House.
I have no regrets about inviting the Minister to join me at this early hour in the morning to debate this important topic. However, I greatly regret that it should be left to me to bring this topic to the House on the last morning before the House rises for the summer recess, so that we may discuss a proposal made as long ago as 12 November last year, the day of the autumn statement, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Since that time, apart from an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), the Government have contrived to keep the issue out of the House. I regret that the debate is not taking place in prime time when the House is packed with hon. Members who are outraged by the Government's proposals.
In her statement on 12 November last year, my right hon. Friend made much of the fact that the drugs bill was at its highest ever in 1991–92, that in England it was £2·317 billion, and the increase in 1991–92 was 11·5 per cent. She also made much of the fact that that growth could not be sustained, and she said that she would take measures to restrain the increase in the drugs bill. Those measures would include renegotiation of the voluntary pharmaceutical price regulation scheme by which the Government and the industry have decided price for many years, and she said that the negotiations would be with the aim of restraining companies' profits from sales to the national health service.
My right hon. Friend also said that the selected list scheme was to be extended. Under that scheme, particular drugs in specified therapeutic categories may not be prescribed under the NHS where effective alternatives are available at lower cost. In making regulations, Ministers act on the advice of the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs and rely for their legal base on schedules 10 and 11 of the General Medical Services Regulations 1992, which list banned drugs.
Implementation is based on the advice of the advisory committee, the chairman of which is hardly independent as he is none other than the deputy chief medical officer in the Department of Health. The terms of reference have been amended for the new round of restrictions, and membership has been extended to take account of the new categories. It would not be of great advantage to list the terms of reference in detail, but they are quoted as
to advise the UK Health Ministers about the composition of schedules 10 and 11 to the NHS (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992, and the corresponding schedules in the Regulations in Scotland and Northern Ireland (except those items which are in Schedule 10 because the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances has advised that they are not considered drugs in the circumstances of general practice) in order that drugs to meet all real clinical needs at the lowest possible cost to the NHS are available in the


following categories: mild to moderate pain-killers, indigestion remedies, laxatives, cough and cold remedies, vitamins, tonics and benzodiazepine sedatives and tranquillisers.
That list of seven categories arose from the original institution of the limited-list process in 1985, at the behest of the then Secretary of State for Social Services, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), ably assisted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), then Minister for Health.
I well remember the row provoked by the original proposal to limit the number of drugs that might be prescribed in those categories on the NHS. A doomsday scenario of sorts was set up by the British Medical Association, the royal colleges, the pharmaceutical industry, various patient groups and so forth. We were visited by the godfathers of the American pharmaceutical industry, who came over to intimidate us into accepting that this was a very bad idea; however, the intimidation backfired. It was just the sort of thing that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe enjoys in his usual adversarial manner.
What really stiffened the resistance of those of us who were inclined to take the industry's part at that time was a disgraceful campaign by the United Kingdom subsidiary of Hoffmann La Roche, which was busy trying to defend its high-priced tranquillisers.
The year 1985 was about tranquillisers, and about remedies—frequently quack remedies—for minor ailments with self-limiting symptoms: coughs and colds, and mild and moderate pain. Eventually, the original list that the Government put up—involving some 30 drugs in those seven categories—was increased, as a result of the hastily contrived advisory committee, to 129 products. I believe that some 150 products are now included in the seven categories. The position relating to minor ailments has persisted to this day.
We were originally told that there would be savings of £100 million; that was later revised downwards to £75 million. Somewhat evasive answers were given to questions within a year of the institution of the limited list, and since then it has been impossible to find out whether any savings have been made. However, one thing definitely has happened as a result of the seven categories: in those categories, no new chemical entity—no new significant product—has been produced since 1985. I shall say more about that later, because it is very important.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to develop 10 new categories of ailment for which there will be limitation. I think we should list them for the record, because this is effectively the first debate that we have had on the issue. My right hon. Friend proposed that the 10 new categories should be anti-diarrhoeal treatments, appetite suppressants, treatments for allergic disorders, hypnotics and anxioytics, treatments for vaginal and vulval conditions, contraceptives, treatments for anaemia, topical anti-rheumatics, treatments for ear and nose conditions and skin treatments. Perhaps three of those areas are more significant than the others. I think that the areas that are particularly worrying are skin treatments, contraceptives and treatments for vaginal and vulval conditions, which include quite serious illness.
There has been an outcry from patients' organisations, individual patients, doctors and, predictably, the industry.
I should like to remind my hon. Friend the Minister just how important the pharmaceutical industry is. It is one of our most successful industries. It has £7 billion-worth of sales a year. Almost 50 per cent. of that produce is exported. A trade surplus of £1·3 billion is produced by the industry.
The industry is also good at reinvesting its profits into research and development. It searches for new and better products. About 18 per cent. of its United Kingdom turnover—£1·4 billion—is invested in research. That compares favourably with other areas of manufacturing industry, which spends an estimated 2 to 4 per cent. of its turnover on research. The pharamaceutical industry employs 100,000 people in high-grade jobs. It does much to improve the esteem of British science throughout the world. We have some extremely good research workers in the industry, and we should cherish it for them.
Medicines produce an economic remedy for many ailments. The House will not be surprised to hear that the industry contrasts pharmaceutical remedies with invasive techniques such as surgery and other advanced technological treatment of patients. Five of the world's 20 most prescribed medicines were discovered in the United Kingdom. That includes the No. 1 product in the world. That gives an impression—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister does not need reminding of it—of just how important the pharmaceutical industry is.
I now wish to deal with the effect that the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have on patients. It is worth saying that the reason why the drugs bill continues to increase is not simply because pharmaceutical companies put their prices up. Rather, it is because many more people are living to a much greater age. It is without doubt that the elderly, particularly those between 75 and 85, are substantial consumers of pharmaceutical products. The Government have encouraged doctors to hold screening clinics, which have identified many hundreds of additional patients who require medicines—for example, for high blood pressure, late onset diabetes and asthma.
The other fact that has increased the prescribing costs of general practitioners is the increasing tendency for hospitals to prescribe the minimum quantity of products to patients who are being discharged from hospital. The Government themselves have suggested that pharmaceutical treatment can be cost-effective. I pray in aid Lady Hooper when she was junior Minister for Health in 1989. She said:
High-cost medicines can be very cost-effective in raising the quality of patients' lives and are under no threat from this Government.
In 1989, when the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was going through the House, my right hon. Friend who was then the Minister for Health and is now Secretary of State for Health said:
Our interest lies in cost-effective prescribing, not cheap prescribing. We are quite prepared to pay the price for innovative new medicines which will significantly improve the quality of patients' lives.
The much-quoted former Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, said:
we have repeatedly made it clear that every patient will be entitled to the drugs which, in the general practitioner's opinion, the patient requires."—[Official Report, 23 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 732.]
In the working paper "Promoting Better Health", the Government outlined their commitment to increasing the


emphasis on preventive care, recognised that that might result in increased expenditure on drugs in general practice, and said that they are committed to meeting such an increase—should it occur.
During the progress of the Bill which became the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, there was much debate about the effectiveness of high-cost drugs as opposed to low-cost drugs. The Oxford region was particularly prone to high-cost prescribing, but in terms of the overall cost of health care, it was seen as very beneficial.
Of particular concern is the fact that 85 per cent. of prescriptions are dispensed free of charge to those on low incomes, the elderly, the chronically sick, pregnant women and children. They will, in the main, be directly affected by the Government's proposals. Doctors are already told by their family health services authorities how much they may spend through their indicative prescribing scheme—a scheme which costs the taxpayer a good deal of money to administer.
One aspect of the debate on pharmaceutical products is that we pay little regard to the fact that pharmaceutical products can be an effective and cost-effective form of treatment for many patients.
Later, I shall return to the recent report on sufferers from heart disease. It is extremely worrying that many people suffering from undiagnosed heart conditions are taking no medication—and even those who are now face limitations on their drugs.
Substantial concern has also been expressed by the Family Planning Association, which points out that, of the 35 brands of contraceptive pills, 22 have different formulations. It is a matter of general knowledge that the best pill for one woman may be the worst for another. There is general concern in family planning circles that, because the newest formulations—which might be the best for younger women—may be more expensive, some women will be forced to accept a less satisfactory treatment or method of contraception. That seems to fly in the face of the Government's "Health of the Nation" strategy, which the FPA strongly supports in giving priority to reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies.
The director of the National Eczema Society, Tina Funnell, highlights the concerns of patients with skin diseases, some of which can be extremely debilitating and very unpleasant. She states:
Extending the selected list will increase demand for expensive hospital treatment. One in five of the population suffers from skin disease at some time, and responses to treatment are enormously variable. Our concern is that to reduce patient choice to two or three products in each therapeutic area will mean poor compliance with treatment. Exacerbations can quickly become acute, and these will require far more expensive in-patient care.
That is a worrying comment from a society dedicated to those who suffer from eczema. Similar concerns have been expressed by the Psoriasis Association, the Acne Support Group, the National Kidney Foundation, Help the Aged, Age Concern, the National Association of Women's Organisations and the Osteoporosis Society.
All these important consumer groups have expressed their worries about my right hon. Friend's proposals for two basic reasons. First, they say that it will lead to a limitation of existing medicines currently supplied by doctors. Secondly, and more importantly. they say that it

will lead to a blight on further advances and improvements in treatments that are desperately needed in all the therapeutic areas, but particularly for skin complaints.
Patient groups realise and recognise—better, it seems, than my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers and their civil servants—that companies simply will not risk investing up to £200 million and 12 years of time in developing a new treatment that wins the approval of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, only to have the product blacklisted by the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs, which is now known, I believe, within the industry as the price control committee for NHS drugs.
Innovative companies based in this country will go on developing new treatments, but many of them will not necessarily seek to make them available in this country. New British-made medicines will continue to treat millions of patients throughout the rest of the world, but NHS patients may be denied access to those advances simply because they will not be licensed or marketed here.
There will be an important knock-on effect on clinical trials, which currently are carried out by our good scientists in this country. Traditionally, companies carry out clinical trials in the countries where they aim to seek licensing approval. If companies cease to seek licences for new products in this country, it is bound to lead to a curtailment of clinical trials carried out by clinicians in our major teaching and university hospitals. That brings me back to the 1·4 billion worth of research moneys that are put in each year by the companies for research into new products.
The medical profession has expressed profound disquiet about the proposal to extend the selected list. Surveys show that 70 per cent. of general practitioners want these proposals to be withdrawn. They follow Dr. Alistair Donald, president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, who recently told a meeting of my colleagues in this House that he and the college are opposed in principle to the limited list concept and a resolution condemning the proposals was carried at a recent meeting of British Medical Association local medical committee representatives.
Doctors are worried about it; patients are worried about it; and the doctors find other senior representatives to express these concerns for them. For example, Mr David Bromham, consultant gynaecologist at St. James's University hospital, Leeds, and chairman of the National Association of Family Planning Doctors, has expressed his concern quite vividly, as have dermatologists at the Hammersmith hospital and gynaecologists at the John Radcliffe maternity hospital, Oxford.
According to the industry, it would appear that the Government want to renegotiate the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme as though the limited list did not exist, and that they want to extend the limited list as though the PPRS did not exist. That seems to fly in the face of reality. Companies believe that if the Government expect them to come to terms with reality, the Government should be expected to do the same.
Health Ministers have repeatedly justified extending the limited list by pointing to the 12 to 14 per cent. annual increase in the drugs bill over the past two years. That increase, they say, is unacceptable. But why is it unacceptable? As I said earlier, the growth is due in the main to the ageing population and to the Government's


encouragement of doctors to identify new patients who require treatment for high blood pressure, the late onset of diabetes and asthma.
The Government's "The Health of the Nation" survey, published just two weeks ago, shows that almost 75 per cent. of over 7 million United Kingdom adults who are suffering from raised blood pressure, at levels that expose them to the risk of premature death from a heart attack or a stroke, are not receiving any medication. For those patients, and their families, it could be argued that the growth in the drugs bill is unacceptably low, not unacceptably high. By spending money now on medicines to prevent or delay heart attacks and strokes, the Government will save millions of pounds in the longer term in hospital and disability costs associated with those two conditions.
No doubt when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will claim that the price control committee—or the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs if he prefers it—will always look favourably on advances in treatment that may emerge in future. Sadly, the industry has lost all faith in Government assurances because only last July my hon. Friend the Minister for Health assured three large companies that the Government had no plans to extend the limited list. That assurance proved worthless within a very few weeks.
In the 10 new therapeutic categories to be covered by the limited list, there are currently 200 projects in research and development, no fewer than 56 of which are for skin complaints like psoriasis and eczema and 14 of which are aimed at bringing about improvements in contraception. There is a real prospect that some of those projects will be abandoned. Perhaps more significantly, if they do reach fruition, they may not necessarily be submitted for licensing in this country. As I have said, patients in other parts of the world will benefit from advances and advantages from which NHS patients will not. That is entirely unacceptable.
At a recent public meeting in London, a senior Department of Health official, Mr. Melvyn Jeremiah, said that it is the Government's intention to ensure that new products do not elbow out tried and trusted products. I do not believe that that remedy is acceptable to this House or to patients. We might sum that up as, "Long live leeches." It will not give any reassurance to the innovative companies that the Government will, in future, look favourably on newer, more expensive products.
The implementation of the limited list this time is vastly different from what happened in 1985. The Advisory Committee on Drugs—the price control committee—comprising expert consultants, doctors and pharmacists, is using most peculiar tactics. It is telling companies that they must agree to bring their prices down to a reference which the committee will determine arbitrarily, or it will recommend to Ministers that their products should be blacklisted.
That seems to be stretching United Kingdom and EC law to the very limits. I suspect that it may be challenged at some stage. It is no better and no worse than blackmail. Companies may not be screaming "blackmail" in public, but they are certainly communicating that message back to their parent companies in various parts of the world and that is having a disastrous effect on investment decisions.
I will not weary the House with too many quotations. However, Mr. Michael Bailey, a director of Glaxo, our largest national pharmaceutical manufacturer, said that
curbs could mean companies scrapping research rather than invent new products which never make it on to the limited list.
What is the point of me spending millions of pounds researching a product that the Government will just blow away?"'
Mr. Bailey asked that question at the annual meeting of the Welsh executive of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. That is an authoritative voice from within the industry to which we should pay some heed.
There is also some doubt about how precisely the committee is determining its reference prices. Reference prices are viewed with grave suspicion throughout Europe because they can be quite arbitrary. For instance, I am told that for some topical skin products the committee is fixing a reference price for a 100 g tube of ointment, irrespective of the potency of that ointment. Potency can vary by a factor of 1:3. That means that a tube of 100 g of one product is really equivalent to a 33 g tube of another product. That is extremely worrying. The matter is summed up by Mr. Paul Mason, another official at the Department, who, at a recent meeting, was heard to say that the committee
does give some indication where it can or'
what might be a reasonable price reduction, basing its calculation on "comparative average prices". When asked to define more clearly the criteria it used to determine acceptable prices for reimbursement, he conceded that the committee found the pricing issue "very difficult to handle", noting that
it is not an exact science by any means".
That gives Mr. Behrendt, director of the United Kingdom pharmaceutical subsidiary of Bayer, according to a recent article, every good reason to say, as he did recently, that
The Government has, in effect, introduced a system of reference pricing [paying for a drug at the price of the cheapest product in its areal"—
that is his definition—
through the back-door. This is very unfair. If innovative products can no longer create a premium, there is little point launching new products on the market.
My hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues at the Department would do well to heed those warnings. Any savings that the Government hope to achieve by the proposed measures will be vastly outstripped by the costs of lost inward investment and the consequential losses of employment and export opportunities. It is economic madness. A senior executive who has worked in the industry for nearly 30 years recently told me:
I have never known companies in the industry so angry with what is currently happening in the UK. They cannot understand why an industry that has contributed so much to patient care and to the UK economy over so many years is being treated in this way.
In a recent letter to a chief executive of a major German-owned company, I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister wrote:
We do not believe that the PPRS and the Selected List Scheme are inimical. The Selected List Scheme covers only a small proportion of the total pharmaceutical market".
A small proportion? The categories in the extension to the limited list alone cover almost 25 per cent. of all NHS prescriptions, not to mention those seven categories in the original list that must account for at least another 5 to 10 per cent. We are probably talking about a third of all NHS prescriptions, and that blows out of the water the claim that the PPRS and the selected list scheme are not inimical.
It seems to me that, if we are talking about that as a small proportion—it is about 150 million prescriptions a year —there seems to be a very odd sense of proportion prevailing at the Department.
Will my hon. Friend explain why three major foreign-owned companies were told in June or July last year by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health that the Government had no plans to extend the limited list scheme? I pray in aid also the question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) about that aspect. Unfortunately, that question has gone adrift, but I hope to refer to it shortly.
Will my hon. Friend also state why the Government are not prepared to wait for the report of the joint strategic working party which they set up and which comprises representatives from the Department of Health, the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, but interestingly omitting anyone from the Office of Science and Technology? Why does he not wait for that working party to report before implementing those controversial measures?
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark and I, together with several of our hon. Friends on the Back Benches, have signed an important early-day motion that also asks the Government to wait before introducing the proposals.
I should like to express the industry's belief that, on this issue, it has won the support of patient and consumer groups, the family doctors and hon. Members. It deserves, at the very least, for its case to be fully debated before the proposals are implemented or final decisions are taken to implement them. Today's debate does not represent a proper debate in prime time.
If the Government seek to introduce the proposals through the back door and without a proper debate and a vote at the end of it, the industry will feel demoralised and betrayed by the British Government. If the Government are so convinced that they are acting in the best interests of patients and taxpayers, they should have no fear of such a debate. They should be prepared to put their case to the test by seeking the democratic approval of the House.

Mr. Roger Gale: First, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and to my hon. Friend the Minister for missing the opening remarks of my hon. Friend's speech. I must also declare an interest as a consultant to the pharmaceutical industry. Above and beyond that, I have a constituency interest because Pfizers at Sandwich employs many of my constituents.
I do not believe that anyone on the Conservative Benches, and possibly very few Members on the Opposition Benches, would question the need to control public sector borrowing and public spending. In that context, the Department of Health must consider its budget as much as any other Department. We all appreciate that. That also means that, within the Department of Health, as much consideration must be given to the control of the drugs budget as to the control of any other expenditure, either on primary or secondary health care.
Following on precisely from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, I wish to question the

efficacy and validity of seeking to use the blunt instrument of the limited list to achieve those necessary budget controls.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has expressed concern about the fact that, in the past year, the drugs bill rose by 11 per cent. The first question that must be asked is: 11 per cent. of what? The implication has always been that that increase represents an 11 per cent. increase in drug company profits and that, therefore, those massive multinational companies are making money out of the sick. It is felt that that money is badly spent and that we should control that expenditure.
We must, of course, review the expenditure to ensure that we are getting value for money, but we need to understand what that 11 per cent. buys before we say that that increase is too great. We need to consider that expenditure in the broader context of health care and general provision. If 11 per cent. spent on drugs is keeping people out of hospitals—and, of course, it is—that money is not only well spent but it means that, in the end, less money is spent. That money is better spent than money spent on hospital beds.
When the first limited list was introduced it was suggested that it would result in savings to the health service of, let us be generous, £80 million per year. That is not an insignificant sum of money, but no evidence suggests that any real savings have been effected on behalf of the health service as a result. It is possible to argue that about £80 million has been saved on the category of drugs in the limited list. It would he more accurate to say that £80 million has not been spent on those particular drugs.
Any general practitioner would reveal that he has often found himself in the ludicrous position of having to prescribe two drugs, at greater expense, to do the same job as that performed by one drug on the limited list. It is abundantly clear to any primary school mathematician that, far from saving money, the real effect of the first limited list was to cost the NHS more—although I concede at once that the money spent on certain drugs was reduced.
Today, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister again a question that I have been asking for a long time and to which I have not yet had an answer: can he tell us of any real saving to the health service or the nation resulting from the first limited list? Does he seriously believe that the introduction of a further limitation will have any helpful effect on the health service budget?
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham rightly referred to the effect on investment in the pharmaceutical industry that the first limited list had—an effect from which the industry and its investment programme are only just recovering. He also mentioned the effect on investment of the current proposals. The industry has advanced various plans to assist the Department in controlling costs. My hon. Friend mentioned that a review committee has been set up, and that it comprises Government representatives, medical experts, and representatives of the industry, for which we are grateful. Indeed, the Secretary of State quickly conceded that it was necessary to put representatives of the industry on the committee, and I do not doubt that that representation will be invaluable. It is sad, however, that the committee is not to be allowed to deliver its findings before at least some of the effects of the limited list are introduced and then felt.
Until now, it has been generally accepted that the United Kingdom has offered the best research and development base for this valuable industry—the best in


Europe, and probably in the world. The quality of our research scientists, the way we go about the job, and the results that we have delivered to the health services of the world have all been second to none. The value of the industry to UK Limited has been colossal, but it is clear that that value will diminish because of the pressures being brought to bear on the industry.
No one suggests that the industry should be given carte blanche to spend and charge as it likes, subject to no controls of any kind. But we must seriously consider the European option. There is considerable over-capacity in pharmaceutical manufacturing throughout the EC, so companies are having to pay heed to what they do and where they do it, and the United Kingdom is no longer their first choice. That is very sad.
In the longer term, it cannot be helpful to public spending to drive away an industry which, for many years, has produced so much tax revenue for the Treasury. We have not paid enough attention to the European option hitherto. The Minister may say that in the short term it is possible to demonstrate falls in drug prices resulting from the mere threat of the imposition of a limited list. And it is true that some companies will have to reduce their prices to marginal costs just to keep their products on sale, once they have recouped the costs of investment, research and development and production.
Where will the seed corn investment for tomorrow come from, however? It is blandly assumed that the profits of these companies go to the shareholders. Of course, some of the profits do, and I do not suppose that the Minister would wish to deny shareholders a due return on their investment. In this industry, however, probably more than any other in the country, or the world, an enormous proportion of the money made after many years developing a drug goes back as seed corn for the development of tomorrow's drugs. It is an industry which cannot stand still unless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham wryly said, we go back to the days of the leeches.
What evidence do I have for my alarmist suggestion? A company in Scotland was offered regional aid to extend its premises. It was a modest extension, requiring about £3 million of investment. The European headquarters said that, in the current climate, it does not regard the United Kingdom as a favourable country for investment so it will not build the extension as a direct result of the limited list. It is not a case of "may not" build it; it has already been decided.
Pfizers at Sandwich, the company so properly and honourably represented by my hon. Friend and which employs my constituents, has invested massively in new research and development facilities. They are extremely impressive, being some of the finest in the world, and they are on the doorstep of my constituency, located in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). It has a large vacant site, awaiting the rebuilding of part of its plant. It is not being rebuilt and, in the present climate, it is difficult to believe that it will be rebuilt. That will mean that further investment will have been denied to the United Kingdom as a direct result of what is to some extent a knee-jerk reaction to a short-term problem.
It is important that we consider the national interest. If I am right, and if the expenditure on drugs is very largely

justified to curtail the expenditure on people being treated in hospital rather than at home, the social effects are not inconsiderable. If mum or dad is in hospital, he or she cannot work. If a child is in hospital, mum or dad still cannot work because he or she has to visit the child. The same could apply to grannie or grandpa. The cost to the family in travel and time, and the cost to business and industry in terms of productivity, will rise. We shall end up paying more in unemployment benefit, income support and housing benefit because more people will be in hospital.
We have a proud record, largely due to the reforms implemented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her colleagues. The Government have made great progress in hospital and primary health care, and we can and should be proud of that fact. It would be tragic if a short-term decision, taken without due attention to the national interest across the board, and which affected one section of one Department, were to damage the United Kingdom's interest.
I hope that the Minister will be able to go some way to reassure an industry that is very worried about its future.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Good morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also wish a good morning to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), and the hon. Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale).
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Gillingham. I congratulate him on securing this debate. For many months, he and I have clashed on issues relating to the pharmaceutical industry, but this morning there was much common ground between us, especially on the efficacy and effectiveness of the Government's proposals. I cannot, however, go along with his doomsday scenario for the industry. I sometimes think that the industry is its own worst enemy. In putting a strong case to the Government, it sometimes over-eggs the pudding with allegations about the loss of jobs and investment, although I take seriously what the hon. Member for Thanet, North said about the need to ensure that we have a financially sound arrangement in terms of the Government's own monetary targets. It must be sound to ensure the effectiveness of the range of products that is available to NHS patients and a return on capital for the industry and new jobs for the NHS and for the world market.
Before dealing with some of the problems that are associated with the Government's proposals, I should like to tease out from the Minister the Government's policy on the price regulation scheme. On the Second Reading of the Medicines Information Bill, I told the Minister that the industry would come back to him about this issue and I asked whether the Government had an effective policy on the price regulation scheme. The scheme does not work satisfactorily for the industry and does not offer public accountability. Secrecy abounds on the price regulation scheme; it is even more secret than the defence contractors' debate. In general, there is more openness in debates on defence contracts than on price regulation, which surely cannot be sustainable. I look to the Minister to say how he will remove the secrecy that surrounds these discussions and negotiations.
For some years, the industry has had a reasonably good deal out of the national health service. It is a matter not of us and them but of a joint arrangement that has ensured a flow of income and profits for the industry which have been reinvested. The price regulation scheme has allowed the industry profit ceilings on the capital employed, which has provided a method of ensuring that it has an adequate return on research and development. Sufficient leverage is built into the price mechanism to ensure that the money deployed on research and development is returned to companies through the bill that they hand to the national health service.
The industry has been able to extend the parameters of its research and development bill by considering what it provides in post-marketing surveillance. The Government have allowed the industry to develop this area to the point where it is no more than promotion masquerading as research. We must consider the limits on advertising and promotion to see how effective they are and whether this method of securing the support of GPs is the best for the health service and patients.
Such campaigns encourage doctors to switch patients from current drugs to new ones. We should ensure that the monitoring of the performance of drugs is effective, and adverse reactions should be recorded to ensure that meaningful data are available to the Department and the industry. If monitoring is poor, the Government must take steps to ensure that the system is strengthened and developed. If necessary, the industry may have to change post-marketing surveillance.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North mentioned the need to deploy profits. It is true to say that in the past the industry has got away with murder in terms of some of its activities. It has, through the Department, been able to increase prices for new products to compensate for delisted medicines. It got around the original limited list proposals.
The Government introduced the limited list as a method of curtailing the cost of drugs to the NHS, but the industry was able to transfer that limited cost reduction to other products. What steps is the Minister taking in the current price regulation scheme to prevent that from happening, or, if it happens, to ensure that the companies concerned give a more than adequate reason for price increases on new products? Will the Government be publishing the National Audit Office report on the price regulation scheme? That report has been available for some time, but, so far, the Government have chosen not to publish it.
The hon. Member for Gillingham, in his thoughtful contribution, set out in graphic detail what is of most concern. The issue of the limited list has come a close second to the issue of sub-post offices in the postbags of hon. Members. The interest has not been engineered by the industry, although it has rightly made its view clear, for the most part in a balanced way. In the main, it has come from individuals affected by the proposals, particularly those who suffer from skin disorders and women who use the contraceptive pill.
It is vital that, when the Government come to their conclusions, before they make announcements, they come first to the House for an open and frank debate. We do not need—we hope that this will not happen—the Government to use the summer recess to make announcements, thereby preventing hon. Members from commenting on the proposals. A significant amount of lobbying has been going on, trying to get the Government

to change their mind. Therefore, it is important that the Government make a statement in the House on how they will respond to the requests for a fresh look at their proposals. I hope that the Minister takes that into account.
I shall deal with skin diseases and contraceptives. Some 15 per cent. of GPs' time and 6 per cent. of all new out-patient referrals result from skin diseases, and 20 per cent. of the population will at some time contract a skin problem. From September 1991 to September 1992, GP consultants in that sector were as follows. For eczema and dermatitis, 11·6 million GP consultations; for psoriasis, 1·9 million; and for acne, 3·3 million. We are not talking about a minor area of NHS activity. We are talking about a significant proportion of the time spent by GPs and of referrals to local district general hospitals. Nor is it an insignificant proportion of prescriptions for treatments. Many of those treatments are required for the long term, as the complaints are painful.
I should like to quote Dr. Michael Beck, a consultant dermatologist. I have chosen his from the many letters that I have received, because he is a constituent of the Under-Secretary, whose constituency of Bolton, West is a marginal one. Perhaps the letter will help him to concentrate on the issue. Dr. Beck is chairman of the British contact dermatitis group, affiliated to the British Association of Dermatologists, and serves on the medical advisory panel of the National Eczema Society. He covers many of the hospitals in my area—which is cheek by jowl with that of the Under-Secretary—and in that represented by the hon. Gentleman.
In a letter to the Under-Secretary, Dr. Beck says:
the implications of a reduction of prescribable items for skin disease is causing grave concern to our patients. Those of us responsible for their care are equally perturbed by the potential consequences. I don't wish to land you with the huge range of arguments against this significant restriction in prescribable dermatological preparations at this time. Suffice it to say there are very strong grounds for suspecting that patients' health will be affected and livelihoods will be lost with what I believe ironically will be an eventual financial loss to the Government. Doubtless you will be aware of the huge numbers of persons affected by significant skin disease [eg prior to the introduction of Statutory Sick Pay, when we had relevant statistics available, dermatitis accounted for more days lost from compensated occupational disorders than all others put together].
It is my view that the political consequence to the Conservative Party may also be significant, bearing in mind the numbers of persons who are likely to be adversely affected.
It is not usual for a consultant to write in such language. He is clearly saying that it is not just a matter of efficacy in health terms; it is a bad financial deal for the Government. The Government will quickly find that it will cost more to withdraw products than it would to introduce the limited categories, as suggested. There will be no net savings from the proposals.
Choice is very important. Skin is highly variable, so responses to treatment vary enormously. The appropriate treatment can be found only by trial and error. Many patients develop an intolerance to the medication, resulting in the need to switch to another treatment. Patients can also develop contact dermatitis, an allergic reaction to one or more of the ingredients in a medication. The current range of branded products usually means that a suitable alternative can be found.
Unlike tablets, a topical formulation can be regularly compared with, or substituted for, another. Differences between topical formulations are fundamental to patient


compliance. The patient has to accept the texture, colour, odour and absorbency of the medication. Irritation, staining potential, presentation and general ease of use of the product are what the doctors want to continue. With the loss of choice and a limited list, potentially a significant number of people might have their treatment withdrawn. That is unacceptable.
Doctors have submitted detailed information to the Department of Health about why the limited list will not save money. If the Government cannot listen to the industry, but instead believe that it has an axe to grind, they should at least listen to those who write the prescriptions. They are clearly and starkly telling the Government that their proposals are a false economy.
I cannot understand why the Government are putting forward such proposals on contraception. During the last few months the Minister has become known within the Government as the Minister of conscience and family morals. He has had a great deal to say about that, as has his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). It is a pity that the Minister has not had much to say over the past decade while many district health authorities have slashed expenditure on family planning clinics. The Department of Health has done nothing to prevent the withdrawal of that core service. A decade on, we see the consequences of that in what the Minister, through "The Health of the Nation', is trying to do to reduce the unacceptably high levels of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
Recently, one-parent families have been targeted as scapegoats—and, indeed, over the weekend grandparents were also targeted. At the same time as the Government are making a moral attack on one-parent families, they are making the unbelievable proposal to withdraw oral contraceptives or put them on to the limited list. There will be no net savings from the Government's proposal, but there will be an increase in unplanned pregnancies and abortions. That is unacceptable to all hon. Members. Whether or not one is in favour of abortion legislation, it is a defeat in any circumstances when a woman has to seek termination. It is a personal tragedy, but it is also a tragedy for the Community and for society as a whole. If there is anything that we can do to prevent unplanned pregnancies and abortions, we should do it.
Oral contraception in the United Kingdom is already the cheapest in Europe. We get a very good deal on the price of contraceptives. Family planning is a good investment—for every £100 invested, we can expect a return of more than £500 in saved benefits and other costs to the state.
We should not limit women's choice; it is unacceptable for women to have their choice of contraception products for family planning limited. Not only is a woman's individual choice limited, but the efficacy and safety of many of the products is also reduced. A woman who starts to use contraceptives at an early age will use them over a period of more than two decades. She must ensure that the product which she uses does not have undesirable side effects.
The industry has done a tremendous job in developing and improving oral contraceptives in the past two decades. A huge investment has been made into research into oral contraception, which is still improving and will continue to

do so. Just when that investment is being made, the Government announce proposals which find no support from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Birth Control Trust, the Family Planning Association, women's organisations, general practitioners or the British Medical Association. During the current debate, I have not found anyone who supports the proposals. When the Minister winds up the debate, will he tell us who supports the proposals? Is the Treasury simply looking for an easy way to make immediate, short-term cuts in the drugs bill at the expense of state spending over a longer period and women's health in general?
At present, between one quarter and one third of sexually active women in the United Kingdom use oral contraceptives. Of women under 30, up to 48 per cent. use oral contraceptives. Of those aged between 31 and 40, 19 per cent. use them, and of those aged over 40, 7 per cent. use them. Its use among younger women is widespread because it is the most effective and appropriate form of contraception for most women. It also provides the best value for money, in terms both of preventing pregnancy and of cost to the national health service. Barrier methods, intrauterine devices, the sheath, the diaphragm and injectables are all less effective, and provide a worse deal for both women and the NHS than oral contraceptives.
Why have the Government made the proposals? It cannot be to save money as the proposals clearly show that it would take only two additional pregnancies for every 100 women currently using oral contraceptives for the small net saving on one woman's drugs' budget for one year to be wiped out. I do not believe that the calculation of two out of every 100 women is an overestimate—I believe that there will be an increase in unwanted pregnancies. That is historically what happens, and it will happen again.
During 1984, when there was the scare involving the pill and breast cancer, the number of terminations in the United Kingdom rose dramatically. In 1988, during the publicity about AIDS and the advice to men to use condoms, there was a further ratcheting up of the numbers of terminations as women came off the pill and relied on men to use condoms. The proposals constitute an ineffective way of implementing family planning in the United Kingdom, and we should not pursue such policies now—indeed, ever. If the Government are serious about achieving the targets contained in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, they must make an early announcement stating that the proposals for oral contraception will be abandoned as quickly as possible.
The termination of a pregnancy costs, on average, £200. It costs £270 for an overnight stay, and £140 for a day case. The average cost to the NHS of deliveries is £1,217. That includes GP costs and the care of any infant who must go into a special unit because of difficulties as a result of premature birth or other difficulties which, unfortunately, may occasionally arise.
On the grounds of efficacy, and in terms of what the medical profession is saying, it is much better to use the pill than rely on males or females to use alternative methods that prove to be less effective than oral contraception. I want the Minister to set out his position clearly.
A letter I received from a constituent GP summed up the matter as follows:


For the sake of saving a few pence a week in the drugs bill, women will experience unpleasant and worrying side effects which will send them back to their GPs time and time again.
It is even possible that the development of new contraceptive pills will grind to a halt as drug companies pull out of the market. The consequences of this will be to reduce further the pool of available contraceptives at precisely the time when specialists say its needs expanding.
That puts the matter into perspective.
I will conclude not simply because the hon. Member for Gillingham is giving me a sign—I usually take signs from my Deputy Chief Whip on such matters. The hon. Members for Thanet, North and for Gillingham and I have managed to put a constructive case to the Minister and I hope that he will respond. It is a pity that the two-man rebellion that we saw this morning did not happen on Thursday or we might not have been on opposite sides of the ring. I hope that the Minister will respond in a much more positive way.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): Madam Speaker, I will follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and wish you a good morning. He forgot to greet the Government Whip. I hope that I do not clash with the hon. Gentleman at this time of the day. He has been more constructive than he sometimes is about the drug industry. In a previous debate about pharmaceutical matters, I remember him talking about the pharmaceutical industry ripping off the national health service. I am glad that he has not resorted to such language today.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on securing this debate. He is a great friend of the industry. In the time that I have been in this job, no hon. Member has sought to speak for the whole industry in the way that my hon. Friend does.
Having been through the Medicines Information Bill with my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Makerfield, I can attest that my hon. Friend put in a sterling performance. I shall say a few words about his regret that there has been a lack of parliamentary discussion on this matter to date, without lecturing him about how things work—he has been in the House for a long time—but for a more general audience. He will realise that the Government's priority is to propose legislation in any Session. It is not necessarily our first duty to introduce debates on such matters. That is the prime duty of the Opposition and any Back-Bench Member who wishes to raise an important matter on behalf of constituents, constituency interests, industries or whatever. Obviously, the Opposition have the opportunity to raise such matters at any time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has a strong interest in this subject. He made a powerful case, to which I will refer later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and the hon. Member for Makerfield spoke about savings resulting from the limited list exercise. Those are hard to compute, because it is impossible to say what would have happened if some other event had not taken place. However, it is self-evident that an exercise that depresses consumption of certain products is likely to save money. It is argued that alternative products are dispensed and that that diminishes the savings. That may be true in some

instances, but to say that a preparation that is not dispensed is always replaced by another is probably fanciful.
The hon. Member for Makerfield spoke about the price regulation scheme and about opening discussions on it. He also spoke about publishing the National Audit Office report. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that, and I note what he said about the need for discussion and announcements on these matters.
Drugs are a powerful weapon in the war against illness, but, of course, they cost the NHS a great deal. The biggest element of NHS expenditure is pay, which accounts for about 70 per cent. of total spending, but the drugs bill accounts for about a third of the remainder. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said, the NHS drugs bill reached its highest level in 1991–92 at £2·3 billion in England. Last year, it rose by a further 14 per cent. We cannot ignore that and must analyse the matter to determine whether we are getting value for the whole of that increase. We must keep the issue under close scrutiny. Against that background, we need to be alert to ensure maximum cost effectiveness.

Mr. Couchman: I spoke at length in the debate and I hesitate to intervene. When my hon. Friend analyses the reasons for that increase, will he undertake to separate the portions that are due to Government policy in seeking to prevent illness and the portion that is purely an increase in the cost of pharmaceutical products?

Mr. Sackville: It would be foolish of us to suppose that the drugs bill would not continue to rise. We have to make sure that the rate of rise is kept under review, because all health resources are precious. I have no doubt that in the years ahead we shall experience continuing pressure on NHS expenditure.
One important development of prescribing behaviour is to be seen in the GP fund-holding scheme. We have already seen the difference in the rate of rise in prescribing costs between fund holders and other GPs. General practitioners with funds have shown that they have a direct interest in improving the cost effectiveness of prescribing. That is welcome, and they can retain any saving on drugs to reduce demand on the hospital referral element of the budget. That is not just theory: it has happened in practice. The prescribing costs of fund holders in 1991–92 increased, on average, by 3 per cent. less than those of other GPs, and we are confident that that was done without any loss of quality in prescribing.

Mr. McCartney: Is it not also true that, where family health services authorities have introduced extensive generic prescribing policies and encouraged general practitioners—whether or not they are fund holders—there has been a significant budget saving?

Mr. Sackville: That is true. There are all sorts of ways of trying to improve the quality of prescribing, and I do not think that some of the earlier references to indicative prescribing schemes are appropriate. I seem to remember that, when some of these schemes were announced, there were cries of alarm from the medical profession; I think it fair to point out that some proved to be unfounded.
The selected list scheme should be seen as only one element in a wider strategy to control the rise in the NHS drugs bill. As has been said, a group of products was announced in 1985, including seven therapeutic categories.


Despite initial scepticism, it has not proved difficult or costly to administer; nor—I stress this—has it prevented patients from receiving the drugs and services that they need. I know of no case that has been made to attempt to prove that that has happened, although it was widely predicted by the industry and others at the time. Experience of the scheme has demonstrated that downward pressure can be exerted on the drugs bill without detriment to patients; that must be the key to any action that we take in this regard.
We now propose to extend the scheme to include 10 further categories. They cover a range of products at varying price levels, and offer scope for savings while enabling all clinical needs to be met. Let me emphasise some important aspects of the scheme. Decisions on which drugs may no longer be available will be made on the advice of the advisory committee. Despite what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham about the chairmanship of the committee, it is an independent body consisting of experienced doctors, dentists and pharmacists, appointed following nomination by relevant professional organisations.
The committee's membership has been increased to ensure that it has the necessary expertise to review new categories of drugs. For example, it now includes a consultant dermatologist, a consultant gynaecologist and a family planning doctor. It is free to take whatever outside expert advice it deems necessary.
The committee's remit is to ensure that drugs to meet all real clinical needs can be provided as economically as possible. That is central to the argument.
The hon. Member for Makerfield mentioned contraception. It is entirely untrue to say that the removal or review of constituents of the list will force women into abortion or off the pill, and impose contraceptive duties on men. As the hon. Gentleman may know, many oral contraceptives are currently available on prescription. Some duplicate others; I will not go into detail, as that would prejudge consideration of the list. However, if we thought—and if the advisory committee feared—that women would be forced off the pill, we would take no action that would lead to such a result.
Let me repeat that it is a priority of our NHS policy to ensure that the appalling rate of teenage conceptions—which is five or six times the rate in neighbouring countries in northern Europe—is contained. That is an appalling national record and we shall not take any action that will cause further deterioration.
The exercise cannot be characterised as a limitation in responding to patients' needs. If that was the case and if women were forced off the pill, the committee would not have done its job properly. I have no hesitation in saying that. Obviously, the Family Planning Association and family planning doctors are worried. They do not know the outcome of the review. They may fear the worst. But I am bound to give the hon. Member for Makerfield that reassurance.
A huge number of dermatological products are available. The committee will have to decide how many of them are efficacious. If it finds that some are being prescribed at NHS expense which are not efficacious, it will have to look hard at whether those drugs should be prescribed at NHS expense or at the price at which they are currently sold. It would be irresponsible of us not to consider that. All the doomsday predictions about the effects and outcome of the review are premature.
All sorts of medical groups have made it plain that they are worried. I stress that the expert committee is there to ensure that there is a full range of drugs to meet all clinical needs. That is its remit. It does not have a Treasury remit or any other remit.
The committee will ensure that manufacturers are informed as soon as possible if their products are not to be considered. Companies will be given an opportunity to make representations against any provisional view that a product should not be prescribable. In the past few months, many individuals and organisations have made representations to the Government about the selected list scheme. They have argued that they should be given an opportunity to make their views known. We have listened to all those representations. I have met several delegations. We have considered how we might respond to them.
We have decided that, with immediate effect, we shall announce approximately a month before an order is laid the likely coverage of an order to add products to the selected list. That will give hon. Members and the public and any other bodies or individuals an early opportunity to make their views known about what is proposed.
In addition to anxieties about patient welfare, it has been claimed that extension of the selected list scheme threatens Britain's successful pharmaceutical companies. I do not accept that view for several reasons. I do not need reminding about the value of the pharmaceutical industry to the United Kingdom. It is one of the few great research-based, exporting, manufacturing industries left.
The United Kingdom represents 3 per cent. of the world market in consumption of pharmaceutical products. The new categories of drugs being considered by the advisory committee represents a small proportion of that. In the context of a single market, it is fanciful to assume that some restrictions on sales here, or some restriction on the list of products available for dispensing, would control decisions on investment, research and licensing here. If there are reasons for a company to move its manufacturing, research or licensing abroad, in a single market context, it is free to do so and should do so. To suggest that the introduction of some measure of control —matched by controls elsewhere in Europe—will result in companies moving overseas could, in some instances, be an empty threat. We must place that in context. We enormously value this country's pharmaceutical industry.
I am sure that the business managers noted the requests to debate those matters, which are of enormous importance. However, there has been a great deal of doomsday prediction. This country has a strong and vibrant pharmaceutical industry. To say that we are going back to the age of leeches is dangerously premature.

Orders of the Day — Gipsy Sites

Sir David Mitchell: I raised the problems caused by gipsies, tinkers, nomads and new age travellers in December 1991 and in May 1992. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for the hour. but not for raising that matter again, for the scenario is changing.
The problem is in two parts. The first relates to the large number of vehicles and people that descend on my part of Hampshire and other parts of the country pre-solstice—later drawing large crowds mainly of youngsters to a noisy festival. The second relates to smaller groups of nomads who travel in caravans and converted buses. They take up residence on sites that are often unsuitable and remain there weeks and months with no proper sanitary arrangements, accumulating unsightly rubbish, and leaving filth behind when they eventually depart.
In our experience in Hampshire, the Public Order Act 1986 is a most effective way of expelling the first group from private land. The Minister may recall that a large settlement arrived at Stockbridge Down two years ago. They were moved on using the 1986 Act, but then they settled on some green lanes where there was a public right of way as well as private property. Section 39 of the 1986 Act does not apply to green lanes.
I suggested that that legislation should be extended to apply to such situations. The then Minister kindly arranged for the Minister of State, Department of the Environment to arrange a meeting between Home Office, Department of Transport and Department of the Environment officials, to which I made a presentation together with a representative of Hampshire county council and the deputy chief constable.
I was delighted to receive a letter earlier this year from my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, which stated:
Your general interest and concern in this issue and your suggestion about extending section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 to include green lanes and byways open to all traffic were most helpful in our discussions as to how best we might proceed … We propose that section 39 should now be extended to cover minor highways, lanes and byways open to all traffic … As well as changes to section 39 we also propose to take measures to deal with illegal raves. We propose to give the police the power, where 10 or more people have gathered on a site and where it is believed that a rave will take place, to direct those people to leave. It would be a criminal offence to ignore the direction.
That is most welcome, and will go a long way to ensuring that, pre-solstice, mass concentrations of travellers will no longer frighten my constituents. I use the word "frighten" intentionally, because that is the effect.
However, I did not keep my hon. Friend the Minister up all night for a debate that started at half-past 7 in the morning simply to thank him. The second problem is the small groups of half a dozen or so who often camp for longer periods. They are part of some 3,900 to 4,000 unauthorised site dwellers throughout the country. I understand that there are some 4,800 county-provided sites and 2,100 private sites. My statistics, though, go back to 1989. If the Minister has more recent figures, I shall find them interesting and helpful.
I had a long letter from the Minister dated 31 March, for which I thank him warmly. He analysed the problem and spelt out the way forward, as he saw it. According to my hon. Friend, the existing system has, first,
failed gipsies and failed the local communities.
I agree. Secondly, it has not reduced
the incidence of illegal camping … local authorities should have stronger powers to deal quickly and effectively with illegal camping.
My hon. Friend also said that the Department proposed to give local authorities a new power to direct trespassers to remove their caravans from land. Failure to comply … will be a criminal offence. We also propose that it will be a criminal offence to return to the same land as a trespasser within three months.
I agree. My hon. Friend will hear the loud "Hear, hears" coming up from Hampshire—

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir David Mitchell: I have a lot of ground to cover, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if the Minister were to respond to the present consultations by removing the right of local authorities to provide sites, a duty that exists now, we should not solve the problems to which he referred but would create more of them and that the solution is to provide both private and public sites that are small and acceptable?

Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a point to which I was about to turn. I am sorry that I gave way to him.
As I was saying, the Minister will hear loud "Hear, hears" from Hampshire regarding that proposal.
The third point in my hon. Friend's letter is that the existing system does not provide sufficient accommodation for gipsies. I agree. It follows, logically, that steps should be taken to provide more accommodation.
How will the Minister take these steps to put right the under-provision that he recognises? He sets that out in his draft circular of 26 May. The under-provision is a matter of sites for nomad encampments. At present, there is a duty on the county council to provide sites. There are insufficient sites, so the Minister tells us, so does he intend to strengthen that duty? No, he intends to abolish it.
If there is no duty, how will the special needs of gipsies be met? Will it be met by relaxing the strict nature of planning controls so that either gipsies have their own camp sites or farmers use set-aside land for private sector provision? No. The Minister's main intention is, first, to reflect
the plan-led nature of the planning system".
That means, in practice, that, if a local plan says it is open countryside and that there is to be no development there, it will be enforced—no matter that there is a deserted chalk quarry, or a gravel pit, hidden from sight by surrounding trees, out of the way where it does no harm to anybody. That site will not be allowed to be used, because it will be outwith the local plan.
No matter that there is a hamlet of some 20 or 30 houses, with contiguous, half-hidden sites. That hamlet does not exist in the planners' eyes, because the planners have declared the area to be open countryside and it is forbidden that there should be any development in that sort of country. If my hon. Friend wants to know more about that, I urge him to look at the case of the Day family


in my constituency, a family of settled gipsies who sought to stay on their own land and who are under threat of being moved. An appeal that went to my hon. Friend's Department was heard by an inspector appointed by my hon. Friend, and was turned down, purely because it was outwith the plan that my hon. Friend intends fully to enforce.
Does my hon. Friend intend to ensure that local authorities give special consideration to the needs of gipsies? No, he is going to withdraw the previous guidance stating that special consideration could be justified for gipsy sites in respect of protected areas including green belts. That is a double no, and a double blow.
Planning applications in respect of the gipsy community should be treated on the same footing as those from anyone else. However, in our over-populated south-east of England and with tight planning controls, the prospect of obtaining planning consent for gipsy sites under the new conditions outlined by the Minister is virtually nil.
I want now to consider the evidence given to the Department in response to the consultation document. Why has my hon. Friend the Minister not published an analysis, or placed in the Library of the House an analysis, of the responses that he has received? Is it because the advice has been generally unhelpful? Is it because it has shown virtually no support for the Minister's proposals on site provision? Is it not true that most respondents wanted to keep and to strengthen the present system?
My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the conclusions of the Cripps report of 1976 and the Wibberley report of 1987, which stress the importance of private site provision. In response to the Minister's circular Hampshire county council stated:
Traditional Gypsies generally have the greatest difficulty obtaining planning permission … There is no evidence to suggest that traditional Gypsies will be more successful in the future in obtaining planning permission.
The measured terms of the Hampshire county council response to the circular states:
If the slight advantage they have, by virtue of the advice given in the Department of the Environment circulars 28/77 and 57/78 is removed, then the prospects are likely to worsen. The County Council sees no prospect of a significant reduction of the numbers of Traditional Gypsies on legal and illegal sites if a main part of Government policy is to expect them to make their own provision from the same starting point as the settled community, and without the present small advantages stemming from Department of the Environment advice.
No doubt the Minister has been to the DOE library and has read the responses. Is he aware that my research shows that the Council for the Protection of Rural England is concerned that the replacement of the statutory duty to provide sites is likely to increase the problem of identifying suitable sites? It believes that the overriding objective of gipsy site policy should be to secure sufficient sites in the most environmentally acceptable locations.
The Country Landowners Association feels that the provision of gipsy sites should continue, while gipsies should receive encouragement to provide sites themselves. More local authority sites should be provided on local authority land. To some extent, the Caravan Sites Act 1968 was successful.
The National Farmers Union states that the present provision of gipsy sites is unsatisfactory. There are not

enough of them, and some are poorly managed. The NFU is against absolving local authorities from their present duty. The National Trust states that a repeal of the duty to provide sites will result in lack of incentives to local authorities to provide sites.
The Town and Country Planning Association disagrees most strongly with the repeal of the 1968 Act duties and believes that there is no good reason why travellers should not receive assistance at a level similar to that received by other sectors in the provision of places to live and work.
The Association of County Councils believes that the proposals do not provide a solution that is intellectually coherent, acceptable in humanitarian terms or workable in practice. I agree with that. Response after response informs my hon. Friend the Minister that he has got it wrong. He rightly consulted, but he appears to have ignored the responses that he received.
I want now to consider the draft provisional circular on gipsy sites and planning of 20 May. What does that document tell us? I will not read the whole document—I do not have time and I would not seek to do so—but I shall quote the essence of it:
The proposed removal of the local authorities' duty to provide gypsy sites is expected to lead to more applications for private gypsy sites.
That is quite right. It goes on:
Local planning authorities will need to be aware of the accommodation and occupational needs of the travelling community".
Hear, hear, but what is being done about that? It goes on:
It will be important for local planning authorities to be ready to discuss gypsies' needs at an early stage".
Very nice. It goes on:
Authorities' plans may"—
not "will have a duty"—
identify locations suitable for gypsy sites … Other areas which may"—
I stress "may"—
be suitable for gypsy sites might"—
not "must", not "should"—
include vacant land or surplus local authority land.
So it goes on. There are pages and pages saying not very
much. It states:
Authorities should"—
not "must"—
take a positive approach in considering planning applications for private gypsy sites … There is, however, no special status attaching to gypsies in determining planning applications.
In practice, that means that not a single proposed gipsy site in Hampshire, and certainly none in the Test valley, will ever be given consent. Gipsy sites are unpopular. They are an unpopular decision to be taken. Unpopular decisions can be relatively easily taken by large authorities, because only a small section of representatives will kick up a fuss. However, when the matter moves from county size to district or borough size, the furore when a gipsy site is proposed will ensure that it will be turned down by the planners.
My hon. Friend's document consists of pages and pages, but it does not do anything to help provide for the sites that are required. I ask the Minister to draw back now before it is too late. I understand that he intends to introduce a Bill following the Queen's Speech in November. I staged this debate to say, first, that the proposals on mass disturbance and the Public Order Act 1986 are excellent; and, secondly, that the proposals to curb illegal camping are okay, provided that alternative


provision is made. But the proposals to remove the county duty to provide sites and let gipsies take their chance like everyone else with the planning system are deeply flawed.
Local authorities will use their powers to move gipsies and nomads off unauthorised sites, and, like the Arcadians, they will go—but where? To another, probably more unsuitable site, causing more nuisance for local residents than the original site that they were on. The Minister should take back the proposal and think again, and, with respect, listen to the consultation responses that he has received. It is better that he does that now than incorporates a ministerial banana skin in a November Bill.
I now wish to refer to unauthorised sites occupied by nomads. Parish councils and constituents alike have three principal complaints about such sites: they are insanitary—there is the comment about going into the bushes with a spade in the hand, or even none—rubbish and litter around the sites, and their unwashed appearance.
I put a constructive point to the Minister. One of the main components of a successful policy will be the provision of transit sites, which are better chosen by the local authority than by the nomads who are driven from site to site. Such transit sites need four things: first, a bit of waste ground, well away from housing; secondly, two lavatories; thirdly, one stand pipe for water; and, fourthly, a skip for rubbish—nothing else.
That costs a lot less than providing public housing for nomads who do not want it. Most of them live on £44 a week income support. They do not draw housing benefit. It is far more economic and makes far more sense to give them a loo, a water supply and a skip for rubbish than to criminalise them by taking away their existing unauthorised site and failing to make alternative provision.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I will try to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) in the comparatively short time available to me. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) intervened to make it clear that there should be a continuing duty in terms of public provision. I will also address that issue.
My hon. Friend has had a continuing interest in this matter. In an earlier debate, he referred to three main concerns—illegal camping by small numbers of people in caravans sited on green lanes; large convoys of new age travellers who descend on my hon. Friend's constituency during the summer solstice on their way to Stonehenge; and ravers who are associated with the new age travellers in setting up unlicensed music festivals. We have taken steps to tackle those concerns—steps which have been welcomed by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend is concerned that our reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 will not ensure that a sufficient number of sites will continue to be made available. I urge my hon. Friend to discuss his concerns with hon. Members from constituencies in Avon and Somerset. Despite the statutory duty on local authorities under the Act, which has been in force for more than 25 years, the provision of sites in Avon is woefully inadequate. Continuing disputes arise between districts and the county about the location of those sites. Every application is subject to considerable contention in the local communities and each application is politicised.
Despite the operation of the 1968 Act for more than 25 years, few districts in Somerset are designated as offering adequate provision for caravans. That Act, which commanded all-party support, was introduced with the best of motives, but it simply has not worked. Less than 40 per cent. of local authorities have made adequate provision under the terms of that Act so that they can become designated. In reality, even those that have been designated would need to make further provision because the Act was deeply flawed in its estimate of the number of gipsies for which it needed to make provision.
We think that the time has come for that to change. As my hon. Friend has made clear, the 1968 Act has failed local authorities, local communities and the gipsies. For that reason, we believe that in future travellers should seek to make provision through the planning system.
Many travellers already have made provision through that system and many private sites exist. I have two in my constituency, which offer 50 pitches each. In the 10 years in which I have been a Member of Parliament, I have never had any difficulty with either of them. I have never received any complaint about them; nor has any question been raised with me about them. The sites are well managed.
The planning system is perfectly capable of making the necessary provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West is concerned that no gipsy site will ever receive planning permission in the Test valley should we opt for that system. With due respect, my hon. Friend is wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, the Test valley district council and every other district council will have to make provision within its local plan for reasonable provision of gipsy sites, just as it must make provision in the local plan for every other planning contingency. That is what the planning guidance circular is all about—ensuring that local authorities make adequate proposals and provision for travellers in their development plans.
Then, if a local authority unreasonably refuses applications, an appeal is possible. I am determined that the planning system should operate fairly. At present, it does not explicitly recognise gipsies' special accommodation needs. Local planning authorities are required only to have general policies in their structure plans, which are seldom translated into detailed policies and local plans.
Planning applications from gipsies are nearly always treated as departures from local planning policies. That is why we have issued, in draft form for public consultation, planning guidance which will require local planning authorities to include specific gipsy site policies in their local plans. That will give gipsies confidence in the system and encourage them to follow the rules.
In the past, in incidents such as the one that my hon. Friend described, when gipsies have sought to make their own provision and have had their applications refused, and inspectors have then turned them down on appeal, this has almost always happened when gipsies have bought land, moved on, and sought to set up pitches without planning permission. Then, when the local authority has tried to take enforcement action, the gipsy family concerned have applied retrospectively for planning permission, and if it has been turned down, they have appealed. Not surprisingly, inspectors have said that it was wrong to flout the planning system in that way.
I have every confidence, however, that, if gipsies make proper applications to local planning authorities, they will be provided with planning permission. Moreover, they will be able to see that local authorities make proper provision


within their development plans. If they do not, I have no doubt that the National Gypsy Council and others will draw our attention to the local authorities that they do not believe are making such provision. The Department can intervene in the development plans concerned and tell the local authorities that they are failing to make adequate provision.
This will be a far more effective way of proceeding than the present cumbersome system, in which the Secretary of State's only recourse in such cases is to serve a statutory direction under the 1968 Act. A direction was served on Avon some years ago, but despite the application of the stick, adequate provision has yet to be made.
The National Gypsy Council and others have welcomed the increased provision for private sites. The council, in response to the consultation paper that we issued in August 1992, said:
private sites are beneficial to all concerned: to gypsies because they offer them the security of a legal home and a base from which they can send their children to school; to local authorities and central government who are spared the expense of developing and managing sites; and to the local settled community by the reduction in numbers of unauthorised encampments … private gypsy sites are in locations where the gypsies who live on them will want to be; they suffer none of the problems due to incompatibility which are sometimes found on local authority sites; and once private sites become established, families on it quickly prove themselves to be good neighbours.
So the gipsies themselves have welcomed our proposals.
My hon. Friend asked why we do not publish a detailed analysis of the consultation. That would be very difficult, given the sort of responses that we obtained. They were often based on complete misunderstandings. For instance, press reports had led quite a few of those responding to believe that we intended deliberately to force gipsy families away from their traditional lives into domestic residential housing. There was never any suggestion of that. It was a red herring, but it affected many of the responses.
Also, as my hon. Friend said, some of those responding merely wanted taxpayers to continue to provide a 100 per cent. grant. That has failed in the past. We have invested £56 million in the public provision of gipsy sites since 1968, but fewer than 40 per cent. of local authority areas are properly designated as having made adequate provision for gipsies.
I very much hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the measures that we have—

It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Ancram be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Robert Jackson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Orders of the Day — Sergeant Robin Feddon

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

8 am

Mr. Eric Martlew: I rise, after a very long night, to request the Minister to order a board of inquiry into the death of Sergeant Robin Feddon. Tomorrow is the second anniversary of his death, but his mother has still not received a satisfactory explanation of the events that led to the death of her son. She is a constituent of mine whose husband, brothers and sons have all served with the British Army. She is proud of that tradition and of the fact that her son, Robin, served with distinction in the Gulf. She believed in the fairness of the Army and in British justice, but, almost two years after her son's death, her faith has been shattered by the Ministry of Defence's failure to order a board of inquiry into her son's death.
I relate what happened. The Feddon family was based in Munster in Germany with the British Army. Sergeant Feddon was with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, but served with the Hussars. On 28 July 1991, Mrs. Feddon left the family home at 1.20 pm, believing her husband to be alive. She returned at 1.30 pm with a friend, Mrs. Pritchard, and found him hanging by a skipping rope in the cellar. Mrs. Feddon and Mrs. Pritchard left the house without trying to save Sergeant Feddon. They did not seek help for at least 10 minutes—some argue that it was 20 minutes—but at 1.50 pm the guardhouse received a report about the incident. At 2.6 pm, Sergeant Feddon was pronounced dead.
Before the funeral, Mrs. Feddon went to Holland on holiday with her boyfriend and Sergeant and Mrs. Pritchard. Mrs. Feddon decided to have her husband cremated in Germany rather than bringing the body home for burial in this country. That ruled out the possibility of a coroner's inquest. Mrs. Feddon received moneys totalling £165,000 from Army gratuities and insurance policies.
Sergeant Feddon's brother claims that the widow told him that Robin had drunk half a bottle of spirits on the morning before he died. The post-mortem results record no alcohol in his bloodstream. Sergeant Feddon's mother says that Sergeant Pritchard phoned the family to say that Robin had been receiving psychiatric treatment, but the medical records show that that was not so.
I have stated the facts. I am not accusing Mrs. Feddon of any crime; this is not trial by Parliament. I am relating the events to make it clear that it was not a usual death, or suicide, if that is what it was. It was unusual in the extreme; it was bizarre, yet there has been no inquest or Army board of inquiry to which witnesses could be called under oath.
Army regulations state:
Matters to be investigated in accordance with Defence Council policy. The Defence Council declare that, as a matter of policy, the matters set out below are usually to be investigated by a board of inquiry.
The first of those matters is
Unnatural death abroad.
(1) Of any person subject to military law, other than death by enemy action.
That certainly applied to Sergeant Feddon.
Since Sergeant Feddon's funeral, his family have been pushing for further investigations. They have written to the Ministry of Defence, to Robin's commanding officer,


to generals, to the Attorney-General and to the Prime Minister. I have written to two Ministers on five occasions and have had two meetings with Viscount Cranborne. On the first occasion, I had to threaten to seek an Adjournment debate because he refused to see me. I last wrote to him on 28 February requesting a board of inquiry; I have yet to receive a reply.
I advised the family that to take the matter further I would have to seek a debate in Parliament, which would mean making it public. They agreed that that was the only action remaining to them because of the Government's reluctance to hold a board of inquiry. I again telephoned Viscount Cranborne to see whether he would hold a board of inquiry before I applied for an Adjournment debate. Again, he refused.
Two articles appeared in The Guardian on 13 July. The first dealt with my call for an inquiry and the other reported the suicide, or death. They were written by a Lobby journalist. It says much for the family that after two years they decided that the story should be dealt with in a responsible way. David Hencke wrote the article in a responsible way. Many of us can imagine how the tabloids would have handled the story.
The family have been careful and patient, yet the Government have treated the matter with contempt. The Minister may argue that now is not the time to hold a board of inquiry because two years have passed since Sergeant Feddon's death. The fault for that lies with the Army and Defence Ministers, not with the family. Army regulations state that a board of inquiry should have been held, but it was decided not to hold one.
If nothing else, I hope that the Minister will at least say that such an incident will never happen again. The Guardian article reports Lord Cranborne as saying:
I agree that formal proceedings might have prevented subsequent recriminations. The need for a board of inquiry in such circumstances is being reinforced.
That is an admission by the Army that a board of inquiry should have been held, that a mistake has been made and that the matter should be rectified in the future.
That is not good enough. I do not accept that an investigation by the military police is a substitute for a board of inquiry or an inquest. If Sergeant Feddon had died in the United Kingdom, there would have been a police inquiry and a public inquest, at which witnesses could have been cross-examined under oath. That was not the case, so I do not accept the argument that, if there was a police investigation, that should be the end of the matter. It is nonsense to say that there should be one law for the Army and those who serve overseas and another for civilians in this country.
There has been a cover-up. I do not know why there has been a cover-up and I am not accusing anybody of committing any crime. I am just saying that justice should be done and should be seen to be done. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that the Government have given great thought to the matter, consulted the Minister in the other place, and decided that there has been a mistake and that there should now be a board of inquiry so that, on the second anniversary of Sergeant Feddon's death, his family will know that all the facts of the case will be made public. Then, perhaps, his mother can get on with grieving for her son.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has taken this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the sad facts surrounding the case of Sergeant Feddon. This is by no means the first opportunity that the hon. Gentleman has had to air the facts of the case, and I know that he knows the facts intimately. I very much hope, for the sake of the Feddon family, and not least the children, that it will be the last. He said that letters to my noble Friend Viscount Cranborne had not been answered, but he must admit that he has had two meetings with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence as a result of those letters, and has received full explanations. I hope that he will regard those meetings as replies to those letters.
Of course, I understand the distress of Sergeant Feddon's parents. The hon. Gentleman said that this is not a trial by Parliament, but it seemed to me to be getting pretty close to it. He said that there has been a cover-up. but I believe that the facts will show otherwise. I hope that this morning will be the end of the matter.
At about 13.55 hours on Sunday 28 July 1991, as the hon. Gentleman said, exactly two years ago tomorrow, the Royal Military police, Munster, received information that the apparently lifeless body of Sergeant Robin Feddon had been found by his wife, Mrs. Juliet Feddon, in the cellar of their married quarter. It seems he had committed suicide by hanging himself with a skipping rope.
The scene was visited by the investigating officers of the special investigations branch of the Royal Military police and the senior medical officer. The senior medical officer pronounced Sergeant Feddon dead at 14.06 hours, the cause of death to be determined by post-mortem examination. It was established that the body had not been disturbed and, after photographs had been taken, the body was removed to the mortuary. No letter was found and there was no obvious evidence that Sergeant Feddon had intended to take his own life. A full military police investigation subsequently took place. The results of this investigation are copious and detailed, but I consider it important that I devote some time to enlarging upon its outcome.
Mrs. Juliet Feddon was interviewed at length and it transpired that, following an argument between Sergeant and Mrs. Feddon at a mess function in the early hours of Saturday 27 July, Mrs. Feddon stayed with friends. Sergeant and Mrs. Feddon agreed to meet at their quarter on Sunday 28 July to discuss their differences.
On that Sunday Mrs. Feddon was accompanied by a female friend who remained with the two Feddon children in a nearby park while Sergeant and Mrs. Feddon talked. Mrs. Feddon recounted that she and her husband reached an amicable agreement to divorce and at 13.20 hours she told her husband that she was going to the play park to collect the children.
Mrs. Feddon stated that the children were reluctant to return with her to the quarter but were persuaded to do so by the promise of an ice lolly each. On reaching the house Mrs. Feddon went to the freezer, which was kept in the cellar, to get the ice lolly. On reaching the cellar she saw her husband hanging by his neck from a skipping rope tied to some water pipes near to the freezer. Mrs. Feddon estimated that this was about half past one.
Shocked, she ran back up the cellar steps and told her friend what had happened and that she was going to seek


help from a neighbour. She stated that she went to the house of a neighbouring Army captain where a barbecue was being held. Mrs. Feddon stated that she was understandably shocked by the discovery of her husband's body and too frightened to approach him.

Mr. Martlew: In fact, both Mrs. Feddon and Mrs. Pritchard went in. In The Guardian article from which I quoted, Mrs. Feddon said that she thought that her husband was alive at that time.

Mr. Hanley: I do not have the information that Mrs. Feddon thought that her husband was alive at that time. I believe that she said that she thought that he was 99 per cent. dead. What exactly that means, I know not. All that I know is that she was understandably scared. I have had a report from a psychologist who says that when a person finds another hanging one of a number of normal reactions is to leave the scene immediately.
The hon. Gentleman might want to put himself in Mrs. Feddon's place. Is it a duty to cut down someone who is hanging? Is it a duty to try to lift his feet to try to relieve the weight? Is it a duty to try to ascertain whether he is dead? I submit that it is one of the normal reactions to be so scared with what one has found that that person departs from the scene immediately to try to get help.
I am not saying that that is the only reaction. It may not be the way that the hon. Gentleman would react in such circumstances. Certainly, Mrs. Feddon said that she was so shocked that she left the scene immediately. Her friend also stated that she, too, was scared of going down to the cellar and that she also went to seek help after Mrs. Feddon's departure from the House. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that both women left and neither of them felt that she could approach the body.
A statement taken from another Army captain who was a guest at the barbecue confirms that he witnessed his host with Mrs. Feddon telephoning the emergency services. She was certainly distressed. At almost exactly the same moment the emergency services received a call from another neighbour of the Feddon family, a staff sergeant, who had been approached by Mrs. Feddon's friend.
I have gone into some detail about what transpired on that afternoon because I know that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, Sergeant Feddon's family have expressed some concern at the time that elapsed between the initial discovery of the body and the arrival of the emergency services. The hon. Gentleman has also called into question whether Mrs. Feddon might be guilty of any crime by not cutting down her husband's body immediately. Some people may regard that suggestion as distasteful and inappropriate. I have tried to explain that it is regarded as one of a range of normal reactions. In any event, I am advised that there is no evidence of any criminal conduct on Mrs. Feddon's part. I also ask that the hon. Gentleman makes allowances for the shock that any wife might feel in such appalling circumstances.
The investigating officers found no evidence to suggest foul play and that conclusion was supported by the results of the post-mortem examination. As the hon. Gentleman said, subsequent tests showed a nil alcohol level in Sergeant Feddon's body. Again, as the hon. Gentleman said, his medical records made no reference to his ever having undergone psychiatric treatment—nor is there any

evidence of anyone alleging that he had had such treatment. The special investigation branch concluded that Sergeant Feddon's death was an act of suicide and that the other details were merely hearsay.
The hon. Gentleman referred to insurance moneys and payments from service charities. I am not sure what he is implying, but again it is true that it would be quite normal for someone to take out insurance policies, especially when her husband went off to the Gulf or to some other such episode. No doubt it is another detail that could give rise to suspicion in the minds of those who, perhaps, were unprepared for what happened.
My sympathy and that of the Ministry of Defence remains with the whole of Sergeant Feddon's family. I know that my officials, in responding to their many inquiries, have been courteous and understanding at all times. I have been through the complete file in the few weeks since I have taken on these responsibilities. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a very thorough investigation was carried out and a number of additional inquiries made by the Feddon family were followed up.
Once the investigation was concluded, Mrs. Feddon, as next of kin, was at liberty to choose to have her husband's body either repatriated to the United Kingdom or cremated in Germany. She elected, quite within her rights, to arrange a cremation in Germany and her husband's remains were then repatriated to the United Kingdom. Incidentally—the hon. Gentleman referred to it as a detail which might cause suspicion—that meant that Sergeant Feddon's death was not subject to a coroner's inquest as it would have been had his body been repatriated to England or Wales prior to cremation or burial. It would not have been subject to an inquest if it had been repatriated to Scotland or Northern Ireland, so the inconsistency is not total. However, the purpose of an inquest is to establish who the deceased was and how, when and where he died. It does not apportion blame or address matters of civil or criminal liability.
The hon. Gentleman is also aware that the brigade commander exercised his discretion not to convene a board of inquiry into the case on the basis that such an inquiry would unearth no further relevant facts. The brigade commander was within his rights not to hold a board of inquiry, since although it is Ministry of Defence policy that a board of inquiry should be held into any unnatural death overseas, Queen's regulations do not make that mandatory where the death has been investigated by another form of inquiry or investigation.In this case, the special investigations branch of the Royal Military Police had made a full investigation.
The hon. Gentleman has since requested that a board of inquiry be convened at this late stage. I understand that the reasons for the delay related to the facts as we set them out, but we must deal with the matter from this point. Lord Cranborne refused the hon. Gentleman's request on the ground that witnesses could not be compelled to return to Germany to attend if a board of inquiry were held there, and civilians cannot be compelled to attend wherever a board of inquiry is held. No further physical or witness evidence is therefore likely to emerge now. I have to concur with Lord Cranborne's conclusion that a board of inquiry, which would necessarily have to be based upon the investigating team's original findings, would achieve nothing now. Indeed, I consider it vital that we keep at the forefront of our minds the well-being of Sergeant and Mrs. Feddon's two children on whom any further inquiry could


only have a traumatic effect. Indeed, I feel that the likely publicity generated by raising the matter in that forum might be most undesirable for the children. The hon. Gentleman said that the tabloids had not got hold of the story, but it has been published in The Guardian, so it is in the public forum and available for whatever treatment the tabloids wish to give it. For the sake of the children, I hope that it is not subject to such treatment.
A board of inquiry is not a criminal court and cannot be used to conduct criminal proceedings. The primary purpose of such a forum is to establish the effectiveness of a unit—or, as in this case, of the emergency procedures followed—and assess whether the appropriate measures were taken. I do not believe that any of those factors were in question in this instance.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have undertaken to review the Army's practice with regard to boards of inquiry with a view to considering whether they should be held as a matter of course in cases of unnatural or violent death. There is some inconsistency between the three forces. The results of that review are not yet known. However, even if a board of inquiry were to be held in every case, including this one, there would doubtless still be some who would not accept its findings, any more than they might have accepted the findings of a thorough investigation by the military police.
Since these tragic events transpired, Sergeant Feddon's family have continued to make complaints either directly to my Department or via the hon. Gentleman. Many of those complaints have contained accusations against, among others, Mrs. Feddon which are based upon hearsay and which cannot reasonably be discussed in this place. The investigation into Sergeant Feddon's death was necessarily based primarily on the witness statements of all those present or associated in some way with the case. In many cases, the individuals have been interviewed more than once and on no occasions have the families' claims been supported by factual or witness evidence.
I can only repeat, therefore, the same conclusions which have been imparted on numerous occasions before. I am content that the matter has been investigated to the fullest extent possible and that nothing could or would be gained by reopening the case, certainly not by a board of inquiry. In such circumstances there is often a strong feeling that blame should be apportioned. I appreciate the feelings of the family, but ask them, for their own sake, to come to terms with their loss. The evidence points incontrovertibly to the original finding of suicide.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eight o'clock.